6 ms·

Health care is not tied to employment in Canada, for one.

CivBase 7y ago
Heath insurance is a benefit offered by some US employers as an alternative form of compensation. Employers get discounted rates because of how many customers they bring to the insurer and they pocket some of those savings while passing the rest on to the employees. You can get health insurance without having a job. It's expensive, but it's not like it's cheap through employers. Just cheaper. Health care - at least, treatment for life-threatening emergencies - is a right protected by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in the US.
- vertex-four 7y ago
  Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. Yeah... thought so. You edited your post to add a line about emergency healthcare being a legal obligation of hospitals - we both know that emergency healthcare (i.e. "I am literally dying right this second") is not the total of necessary healthcare for many people. I invite you to try surviving very long as a diabetic when the only treatment option is to go to A&E when you are literally dying.
  - docbrown 7y ago
    I understand your point but you’re also attempting to portray that low income folks have no chance at obtaining health insurance. Thankfully Medicare and Medicaid coverage gives health insurance to millions of people. 63 million to be exact were enrolled through some form of Medicaid in October 2019 (Center for Medicare, 2019)[1]. Another 10 million or so people are eligible for Medicare (prior to age 65) due to a disability. [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
    - vertex-four 7y ago
      The problem is there's a gap between having low enough income (and being able to jump through enough hoops) to qualify for Medicaid and having a good enough job to be able to afford adequate health insurance to receive healthcare in anything but an emergency.
  - CivBase 7y ago
    > Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. I'm not offering an opinion here. I just think the distinction between health care and insurance is important. The original post I was responding to implies to some that you need a job to receive treatment. It also conversely implies that having a job means you can get treatment. I've actually talked to people outside the US who think that because of how our discussions are often worded. > You edited your post to add a line about emergency healthcare being a legal obligation of hospitals I'm sorry. I often think of things to add to my post right after submitting. I was editing it before I saw your response. > we both know that emergency healthcare (i.e. "I am literally dying right this second") is not the total of necessary healthcare for many people. I agree, which is why I specified that the right only extends to life-threatening emergencies.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      Emergency care means they stabilize you so you won’t die right away and then kick you out. Many of the things that you will die from will never even qualify for it, e.g. treatment for cancer. You need money, insurance, or real charity to get care for that.
    - eropple 7y ago
      If you're not offering an opinion through the kind of hair-splitting that elides the immediate and generally permanently life-wrecking consequences of not having health insurance, then that hair-splitting serves very little purpose. On the other hand, if your opinion is that the status quo is acceptable, it allows you to rhetorically minimize those consequences because, hey, at least they're not dead, even if the best way out of that debt can seem to be suicide[0]. If you believe that, you've bilged a test of basic humanity. If you don't, perhaps re-think what drives your well-actuallies in the future? [0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elderly-couple-found-dead-in-apparent-murder-suicide-left-notes-about-high-medical-bills/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elderly-couple-found-dead-in-ap...
      - CivBase 7y ago
        I gave a reason for my "splitting hairs" and you conveniently ignored it. Stop projecting opinions that are not mine onto my post. I believe the health care and insurance industries in the US is broken and does not adequately serve a huge portion of citizens with low incomes. I have never suggested the current system is okay. If your opinion is reliant on misinformation, you should reevaluate it. Otherwise, you should not be concerned with someone like me "splitting hairs".
- behringer 7y ago
  You can't get treatment for life-threatening "conditions". You can only get treatment for life-threatening "emergencies". You got a tumor? Good fucking luck. You got a seizure because of your tumor? Come on in and we'll make sure to send you an absurd bill later.
  - CivBase 7y ago
    I was trying to find a word that covered "illness" and "injury", but you're right. I've edited my post with the fix.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    I know multiple poor people that had their cancers cured without cost to themselves, no "emergency" required. The reality isn't as bleak as you are making it. The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world, which would not be possible if poorer populations were not having their cancers proactively treated.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      On the one hand, good for them and it would be nice if you elucidated whatever you know about how they pulled this off. On the other hand, it's basically dismissive of a very real problem here. I read a lot about homelessness. I've seen far too many people indicate they are homeless in part because they have cancer and it's ruining them financially. America is hardly some utopia where we take wonderful care of all our people, regardless of ability to pay.
      - ReallyAnonymous 7y ago
        General surgeon in the South here. What I've seen is that uninsured individuals will prolong going to the doctor for symptoms because of cost and that sometimes costs them their lives because of the advanced presentation of their disease. On the other hand, once you get diagnosed with cancer in South Carolina, you automatically qualify for Medicaid so that you receive some treatment. This way, you die with treatment and our system does not seem cruel. Even advanced, expensive chemotherapy is paid for, sometimes exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for health insurance based on income, not assets. If you're diagnosed with cancer and lose your job (because chemo is tough), and have assets, pay the Cobra until next sign up period. Sell all assets and invest to make about $20-$30k a year. Your premiums will be low and you'll have access to quality care. Move near large academic institutions because they do medicaid / bad insurance care. This way you minimally touch assets. Rich people hate the Affordable Care Act because they don't get subsidies on premiums, which are about $3500 / month for a family now, and they have to pay 4.8% Medicare tax on all income over $250k . So, in essence, someone that makes $1m a year pays $78k/year in health care costs. Lastly, I take care of a Pizza Hut delivery person who gets his insurance through the Affordable Care Act and only pays $40 / month for it, because of the subsidies.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Lots of medium sized (and larger) companies self insure and pay an outside company for administration rather than insurance (insurance companies often offer this type of service).
- lowtolerance 7y ago
  Health insurance is a benefit offered by some employers to some employees. And the data clearly shows that the drop in employment has not resulted in a corresponding rise in health insurance coverage, which just adds further evidence to the argument that our current low unemployment rate really just means that we’ve traded high unemployment for high underemployment.
  - CivBase 7y ago
    Thanks. Edited my post to say "some US employers".
  - ReallyAnonymous 7y ago
    I take care of a lot of people who work for Fortune 500 companies that have Medicaid. My taxes, therefore, subsidize these companies' profits. Moreover, when I was in private practice, I accepted sub market fees for my services when I took care of them. This is the reason why I am a hospital employee. I get paid regardless of whether the hospital gets paid.
- _jal 7y ago
  > Employers get discounted rates because of how many customers That's hilarious. I mean, you are correct that employers bundle employees together. But without massive government intervention during and after WWII, the industry would have been wildly different, and the way the trend began was highly historically contingent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942 Econ 101 is insufficient for understanding the world.
  - CivBase 7y ago
    I do not want to spread misinformation. If that statement was incorrect, could you let me know how to correct it?
    - _jal 7y ago
      It is mainly that economic factors regarding employment insurance bundling are side effects of having employment-based insurance, not the cause. It is very useful to look at other countries - we have lots of natural experiments in health care markets. If bundling were determinative of market structure, you'd see the same pattern elsewhere.

Heath insurance is a benefit offered by some US employers as an alternative form of compensation. Employers get discounted rates because of how many customers they bring to the insurer and they pocket some of those savings while passing the rest on to the employees. You can get health insurance without having a job. It's expensive, but it's not like it's cheap through employers. Just cheaper. Health care - at least, treatment for life-threatening emergencies - is a right protected by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in the US.

vertex-four 7y ago
Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. Yeah... thought so. You edited your post to add a line about emergency healthcare being a legal obligation of hospitals - we both know that emergency healthcare (i.e. "I am literally dying right this second") is not the total of necessary healthcare for many people. I invite you to try surviving very long as a diabetic when the only treatment option is to go to A&E when you are literally dying.
- docbrown 7y ago
  I understand your point but you’re also attempting to portray that low income folks have no chance at obtaining health insurance. Thankfully Medicare and Medicaid coverage gives health insurance to millions of people. 63 million to be exact were enrolled through some form of Medicaid in October 2019 (Center for Medicare, 2019)[1]. Another 10 million or so people are eligible for Medicare (prior to age 65) due to a disability. [1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
  - vertex-four 7y ago
    The problem is there's a gap between having low enough income (and being able to jump through enough hoops) to qualify for Medicaid and having a good enough job to be able to afford adequate health insurance to receive healthcare in anything but an emergency.
- CivBase 7y ago
  > Try getting healthcare in the US without health insurance, and try affording health insurance when you don't have good enough work. I'm not offering an opinion here. I just think the distinction between health care and insurance is important. The original post I was responding to implies to some that you need a job to receive treatment. It also conversely implies that having a job means you can get treatment. I've actually talked to people outside the US who think that because of how our discussions are often worded. > You edited your post to add a line about emergency healthcare being a legal obligation of hospitals I'm sorry. I often think of things to add to my post right after submitting. I was editing it before I saw your response. > we both know that emergency healthcare (i.e. "I am literally dying right this second") is not the total of necessary healthcare for many people. I agree, which is why I specified that the right only extends to life-threatening emergencies.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Emergency care means they stabilize you so you won’t die right away and then kick you out. Many of the things that you will die from will never even qualify for it, e.g. treatment for cancer. You need money, insurance, or real charity to get care for that.
  - eropple 7y ago
    If you're not offering an opinion through the kind of hair-splitting that elides the immediate and generally permanently life-wrecking consequences of not having health insurance, then that hair-splitting serves very little purpose. On the other hand, if your opinion is that the status quo is acceptable, it allows you to rhetorically minimize those consequences because, hey, at least they're not dead, even if the best way out of that debt can seem to be suicide[0]. If you believe that, you've bilged a test of basic humanity. If you don't, perhaps re-think what drives your well-actuallies in the future? [0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elderly-couple-found-dead-in-apparent-murder-suicide-left-notes-about-high-medical-bills/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elderly-couple-found-dead-in-ap...
    - CivBase 7y ago
      I gave a reason for my "splitting hairs" and you conveniently ignored it. Stop projecting opinions that are not mine onto my post. I believe the health care and insurance industries in the US is broken and does not adequately serve a huge portion of citizens with low incomes. I have never suggested the current system is okay. If your opinion is reliant on misinformation, you should reevaluate it. Otherwise, you should not be concerned with someone like me "splitting hairs".
behringer 7y ago
You can't get treatment for life-threatening "conditions". You can only get treatment for life-threatening "emergencies". You got a tumor? Good fucking luck. You got a seizure because of your tumor? Come on in and we'll make sure to send you an absurd bill later.
- CivBase 7y ago
  I was trying to find a word that covered "illness" and "injury", but you're right. I've edited my post with the fix.
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  I know multiple poor people that had their cancers cured without cost to themselves, no "emergency" required. The reality isn't as bleak as you are making it. The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world, which would not be possible if poorer populations were not having their cancers proactively treated.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    On the one hand, good for them and it would be nice if you elucidated whatever you know about how they pulled this off. On the other hand, it's basically dismissive of a very real problem here. I read a lot about homelessness. I've seen far too many people indicate they are homeless in part because they have cancer and it's ruining them financially. America is hardly some utopia where we take wonderful care of all our people, regardless of ability to pay.
    - ReallyAnonymous 7y ago
      General surgeon in the South here. What I've seen is that uninsured individuals will prolong going to the doctor for symptoms because of cost and that sometimes costs them their lives because of the advanced presentation of their disease. On the other hand, once you get diagnosed with cancer in South Carolina, you automatically qualify for Medicaid so that you receive some treatment. This way, you die with treatment and our system does not seem cruel. Even advanced, expensive chemotherapy is paid for, sometimes exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for health insurance based on income, not assets. If you're diagnosed with cancer and lose your job (because chemo is tough), and have assets, pay the Cobra until next sign up period. Sell all assets and invest to make about $20-$30k a year. Your premiums will be low and you'll have access to quality care. Move near large academic institutions because they do medicaid / bad insurance care. This way you minimally touch assets. Rich people hate the Affordable Care Act because they don't get subsidies on premiums, which are about $3500 / month for a family now, and they have to pay 4.8% Medicare tax on all income over $250k . So, in essence, someone that makes $1m a year pays $78k/year in health care costs. Lastly, I take care of a Pizza Hut delivery person who gets his insurance through the Affordable Care Act and only pays $40 / month for it, because of the subsidies.
maxerickson 7y ago
Lots of medium sized (and larger) companies self insure and pay an outside company for administration rather than insurance (insurance companies often offer this type of service).
lowtolerance 7y ago
Health insurance is a benefit offered by some employers to some employees. And the data clearly shows that the drop in employment has not resulted in a corresponding rise in health insurance coverage, which just adds further evidence to the argument that our current low unemployment rate really just means that we’ve traded high unemployment for high underemployment.
- CivBase 7y ago
  Thanks. Edited my post to say "some US employers".
- ReallyAnonymous 7y ago
  I take care of a lot of people who work for Fortune 500 companies that have Medicaid. My taxes, therefore, subsidize these companies' profits. Moreover, when I was in private practice, I accepted sub market fees for my services when I took care of them. This is the reason why I am a hospital employee. I get paid regardless of whether the hospital gets paid.
_jal 7y ago
> Employers get discounted rates because of how many customers That's hilarious. I mean, you are correct that employers bundle employees together. But without massive government intervention during and after WWII, the industry would have been wildly different, and the way the trend began was highly historically contingent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942 Econ 101 is insufficient for understanding the world.
- CivBase 7y ago
  I do not want to spread misinformation. If that statement was incorrect, could you let me know how to correct it?
  - _jal 7y ago
    It is mainly that economic factors regarding employment insurance bundling are side effects of having employment-based insurance, not the cause. It is very useful to look at other countries - we have lots of natural experiments in health care markets. If bundling were determinative of market structure, you'd see the same pattern elsewhere.