7 ms·

If you are poor in the US your healthcare costs will mostly or entirely be covered. This includes major surgery.

Spooky23 8y ago
Not really, and it varies by state. When you show up with an emergent condition, you get treated and kicked out. We probably spend more money on Medicaid for babies addicted to opioids than it would cost to privately insure mothers.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Every state covers mothers under Medicaid.
  - kaitai 8y ago
    Every state covers mothers who are poor (133% or less of poverty line) or mothers who are "medically needy" under Medicaid. You need to prove you're poor or medically needy to get Medicaid coverage.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Some states make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid, and have reimbursement rates that exclude many from getting care.
chimi 8y ago
Which I never understood. USA provides free healthcare for people who are poor because they don't work and healthcare for people who are retired and don't work. But the USA does not provide healthcare for people who work and keep machine turning. Hmm... I wonder if it's a political lobbying by healthcare industry to get more money for people who wouldn't provide it on their own by extracting it from the tax payers who do work and can (barely) afford insurance, etc.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  This is definitely one of the most ridiculous points about the American system. Medicare for all already exists, it just requires that you quit your job (forever if you have a chronic medical issue) sell your house and assets and stop paying taxes, or having productive input into the economy entirely. What kind of sense does that make?
  - toast0 8y ago
    You don't need to sell your house, you can qualify for Medicaid and they'll place a lien on it. You can't keep savings to pay the property tax or the mortgage though, so I don't think you'd end up keeping the house.
- jackpirate 8y ago
  The US provides acute treatment for the destitute (i.e. we'll fix your broken bone), but I don't think we'll provide chronic treatment for the destitute. I've never heard of a destitute person getting free chemo or hospice for example.
  - harryh 8y ago
    This is incorrect. Medicaid provides for health care of all kinds including chemo and hospice care. There is some evidence that the quality of care isn't as good as private insurance, but there is definitely coverage of some kind for the items you mention.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - kaitai 8y ago
    You're essentially right. My neighbor poster harryh mentions Medicaid, but there are many situations in which you can be destitute and not qualify, or not qualify for many months, during which time you can suffer from lack of chemo for instance. A schoolmate of mine died from cancer in her 20s because the cancer was discovered late due to lack of insurance/healthcare, and then treatment was delayed almost a year because she didn't qualify for X because she had a job with a certain hourly wage and needed to quit and spend down her meager assets to a certain level, then once poor enough it took 3 months to get processed into the state program for the poor, then she finally got coverage and started getting treatment then died quickly because it was so advanced. Some homeless people get 'free' chemo, etc., but there are huge problems with the setup because with certain illnesses they're too well to qualify for hospice or housing or staying in the hospital full-time, but discharging to the street results in non-compliance with medication regimes because they don't have safe places or refrigerators to keep drugs, for instance. On the other end, hospice requires a lot of referrals and paperwork; if you can't get into the pipeline by getting all the referrals and evaluations and paperwork done, you don't get hospice, whether for money or for free.
mhluongo 8y ago
Not really, or there wouldn't be so many medical bankruptcies
- jandrewrogers 8y ago
  Bankruptcy is a middle class concern, the concept presumes a level of credit that poor people rarely have. Medical care is often written off or billed to the government up front if you meet the criteria.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  If you have employment you'll have to pay the bill. I absolutely could see that driving people into bankruptcy. If you have no or little income the government will pay your medical bills.
- rayiner 8y ago
  That doesn’t logically follow. People can make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not be able to afford their hospital bills. Indeed, in many cases Medicaid requires you to become poor, by spending down personal assets first to pay for care, qualify for government support. (Arguably that’s the only fair way to do it. How is it fair for the government to use tax dollars to maintain the social status of a someone who was lucky enough to build up a nest egg, but unlucky enough to get cancer, where it won’t give money to someone who was unlucky enough to be born poor in the ghetto?)
and0 8y ago
That's way off. While it's true public hospitals can't turn you down for emergencies, they'll still send a bill (which is normally much higher due to not negotiating through an insurance company) that would bankrupt the author. And a lot of things people need to survive don't fall under medical emergencies but rather preventative care. A heart attack is an emergency, but not surgery to stop it from happening / the patient's health deteriorating. The author's issues don't seem to fall into the category of an "emergency".
- jandrewrogers 8y ago
  This is definitely not the case, the standard of care available to poor people roughly matches that of the region where they live, it is just typically less convenient and more ad hoc. Been there, done that. The details vary with locale but healthcare is generally available to the poor at little or no cost everywhere in the US. It is a different experience than an insured middle class person but outcomes are largely the same at a given facility. I've personally seen a (likely illegal) migrant worker helicoptered to Stanford hospital where they surgically re-attached a severed limb. Best standard of care available, far above what was required, with no possibility of repayment.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  You're incorrect. I've seen people get full cancer treatment and multiple surgeries and have all of the bills 100% covered by the government. You have to have little or no income to qualify though.
  - techsupporter 8y ago
    I don't know why you've decided to tell everyone in this thread that they're wrong and how the government is oppressing you with taxes to find a social safety net but your really need to understand and acknowledge that your anecdotes are not helpful and they are not indicative of the health care system in this country at large. I can state similar anecdotes of people I know having gone bankrupt due to medical debt or having died due to inability to afford care at the time (what with having no income for almost two years). "The government" did not step in to completely or even mostly cover life saving yet expensive long term care.
fucking_tragedy 8y ago
This isn't correct. In states that accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA, those who make a certain percentage of the federal poverty level[1] would be eligible for coverage under Medicaid. I would argue that the FPL is laughably low, and that an income that is even twice that of the FPL still counts as poverty level income. In states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion through the ACA, people who are poor are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. You can see which states accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA here[2]. [1] FPL for a single individual is $12,140. For a family of 3, it is $20,780. [2] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/ https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-med...
- rayiner 8y ago
  That’s not totally correct either. First, the “percentage” is 138% under the ACA, or about $16,500. Second, every state covers at least parents, children, and pregnant women under Medicaid (the author of the article would be covered in any state). Some states who didn’t accept Medicaid expansion don’t cover childless adults.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    > Second, every state covers at least parents, children, and pregnant women under Medicaid (the author of the article would be covered in any state) I'm unaware of a nation-wide program that covers parents under Medicaid at either 100% or 138% of the FPL. The numbers I can find paint a different picture, for example, parents in Alabama are only eligible if they make below 13% of the FPL[1]. If you have another source, I'm genuinely interested in it. [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > those who make a certain percentage of the federal poverty level For those unclear, the percentage is more than 100. Medicaid has long applied to people well above the federal poverty line, and in most places applies to people even further above it than before.

Not really, and it varies by state. When you show up with an emergent condition, you get treated and kicked out. We probably spend more money on Medicaid for babies addicted to opioids than it would cost to privately insure mothers.

rayiner 8y ago
Every state covers mothers under Medicaid.
- kaitai 8y ago
  Every state covers mothers who are poor (133% or less of poverty line) or mothers who are "medically needy" under Medicaid. You need to prove you're poor or medically needy to get Medicaid coverage.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Some states make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid, and have reimbursement rates that exclude many from getting care.

chimi 8y ago

Which I never understood. USA provides free healthcare for people who are poor because they don't work and healthcare for people who are retired and don't work. But the USA does not provide healthcare for people who work and keep machine turning. Hmm... I wonder if it's a political lobbying by healthcare industry to get more money for people who wouldn't provide it on their own by extracting it from the tax payers who do work and can (barely) afford insurance, etc.

throwaway2048 8y ago
This is definitely one of the most ridiculous points about the American system. Medicare for all already exists, it just requires that you quit your job (forever if you have a chronic medical issue) sell your house and assets and stop paying taxes, or having productive input into the economy entirely. What kind of sense does that make?
- toast0 8y ago
  You don't need to sell your house, you can qualify for Medicaid and they'll place a lien on it. You can't keep savings to pay the property tax or the mortgage though, so I don't think you'd end up keeping the house.
jackpirate 8y ago
The US provides acute treatment for the destitute (i.e. we'll fix your broken bone), but I don't think we'll provide chronic treatment for the destitute. I've never heard of a destitute person getting free chemo or hospice for example.
- harryh 8y ago
  This is incorrect. Medicaid provides for health care of all kinds including chemo and hospice care. There is some evidence that the quality of care isn't as good as private insurance, but there is definitely coverage of some kind for the items you mention.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kaitai 8y ago
  You're essentially right. My neighbor poster harryh mentions Medicaid, but there are many situations in which you can be destitute and not qualify, or not qualify for many months, during which time you can suffer from lack of chemo for instance. A schoolmate of mine died from cancer in her 20s because the cancer was discovered late due to lack of insurance/healthcare, and then treatment was delayed almost a year because she didn't qualify for X because she had a job with a certain hourly wage and needed to quit and spend down her meager assets to a certain level, then once poor enough it took 3 months to get processed into the state program for the poor, then she finally got coverage and started getting treatment then died quickly because it was so advanced. Some homeless people get 'free' chemo, etc., but there are huge problems with the setup because with certain illnesses they're too well to qualify for hospice or housing or staying in the hospital full-time, but discharging to the street results in non-compliance with medication regimes because they don't have safe places or refrigerators to keep drugs, for instance. On the other end, hospice requires a lot of referrals and paperwork; if you can't get into the pipeline by getting all the referrals and evaluations and paperwork done, you don't get hospice, whether for money or for free.

mhluongo 8y ago

Not really, or there wouldn't be so many medical bankruptcies

jandrewrogers 8y ago
Bankruptcy is a middle class concern, the concept presumes a level of credit that poor people rarely have. Medical care is often written off or billed to the government up front if you meet the criteria.
malvosenior 8y ago
If you have employment you'll have to pay the bill. I absolutely could see that driving people into bankruptcy. If you have no or little income the government will pay your medical bills.
rayiner 8y ago
That doesn’t logically follow. People can make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not be able to afford their hospital bills. Indeed, in many cases Medicaid requires you to become poor, by spending down personal assets first to pay for care, qualify for government support. (Arguably that’s the only fair way to do it. How is it fair for the government to use tax dollars to maintain the social status of a someone who was lucky enough to build up a nest egg, but unlucky enough to get cancer, where it won’t give money to someone who was unlucky enough to be born poor in the ghetto?)

and0 8y ago

That's way off. While it's true public hospitals can't turn you down for emergencies, they'll still send a bill (which is normally much higher due to not negotiating through an insurance company) that would bankrupt the author. And a lot of things people need to survive don't fall under medical emergencies but rather preventative care. A heart attack is an emergency, but not surgery to stop it from happening / the patient's health deteriorating. The author's issues don't seem to fall into the category of an "emergency".

jandrewrogers 8y ago
This is definitely not the case, the standard of care available to poor people roughly matches that of the region where they live, it is just typically less convenient and more ad hoc. Been there, done that. The details vary with locale but healthcare is generally available to the poor at little or no cost everywhere in the US. It is a different experience than an insured middle class person but outcomes are largely the same at a given facility. I've personally seen a (likely illegal) migrant worker helicoptered to Stanford hospital where they surgically re-attached a severed limb. Best standard of care available, far above what was required, with no possibility of repayment.
malvosenior 8y ago
You're incorrect. I've seen people get full cancer treatment and multiple surgeries and have all of the bills 100% covered by the government. You have to have little or no income to qualify though.
- techsupporter 8y ago
  I don't know why you've decided to tell everyone in this thread that they're wrong and how the government is oppressing you with taxes to find a social safety net but your really need to understand and acknowledge that your anecdotes are not helpful and they are not indicative of the health care system in this country at large. I can state similar anecdotes of people I know having gone bankrupt due to medical debt or having died due to inability to afford care at the time (what with having no income for almost two years). "The government" did not step in to completely or even mostly cover life saving yet expensive long term care.

fucking_tragedy 8y ago

This isn't correct. In states that accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA, those who make a certain percentage of the federal poverty level[1] would be eligible for coverage under Medicaid. I would argue that the FPL is laughably low, and that an income that is even twice that of the FPL still counts as poverty level income. In states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion through the ACA, people who are poor are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. You can see which states accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA here[2]. [1] FPL for a single individual is $12,140. For a family of 3, it is $20,780. [2] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/ https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-med...

rayiner 8y ago
That’s not totally correct either. First, the “percentage” is 138% under the ACA, or about $16,500. Second, every state covers at least parents, children, and pregnant women under Medicaid (the author of the article would be covered in any state). Some states who didn’t accept Medicaid expansion don’t cover childless adults.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  > Second, every state covers at least parents, children, and pregnant women under Medicaid (the author of the article would be covered in any state) I'm unaware of a nation-wide program that covers parents under Medicaid at either 100% or 138% of the FPL. The numbers I can find paint a different picture, for example, parents in Alabama are only eligible if they make below 13% of the FPL[1]. If you have another source, I'm genuinely interested in it. [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
microcolonel 8y ago
> those who make a certain percentage of the federal poverty level For those unclear, the percentage is more than 100. Medicaid has long applied to people well above the federal poverty line, and in most places applies to people even further above it than before.