11 ms·

Will these hospitalized people be also financially ruined? Or is emergency COVID care free of charge?

mattrighetti 5y ago
You can be ensured or not, it depends. Honestly it’s pretty stupid to end up in ICU when something free has been offered to you in order to avoid just that, so people should just take their responsibility.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > so people should just take their responsibility. if you get a serious adverse event following a vaccination, however unlikely, who pays for your medical expenses since the link with vaccines is always denied?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    One of the specific government programs set up for that purpose. https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      thanks. this is a clear answer.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        It may also interest you to know that, despite claiming "the link with vaccines is always denied", the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... awarded compensation in 42% of resolved claims, and has paid out multiple billions. Everyone, including the vaccine manufacturers, is aware of the possibility of rare reactions. This system exists because "no one will make vaccines because a jury of twelve lay people may award a $500M penalty because little Timmy got autism despite there being no link" is a national security threat.
  - QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
    Why are you emotionally invested in trying to bump up COVID’s kill count? If you can explain the motive, maybe we can find an alternate way for you to work towards that goal with fewer casualties.
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      Are you answering to a different message ?
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Do you also avoid seat belts because there are unlikely accident scenarios where they do harm?
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      Nope I am asking a simple question of who pays in this kind of situation.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        Your health insurance, presumably. It's another argument for public health insurance. Understand that the expected benefit of getting COVID vaccines should be positive for everyone -- the expected harm from side effects should be less (often much less) than the expected harm from COVID infection. There could be public policy reasons for being generous with compensation for side effects, just to increase the vaccination rate, but I think that's a separate issue, and has more to do with the unequal distribution of benefit in a vaccinated population. It could make sense for the old to compensate the young, as the old get more benefit out of others being vaccinated.
MontyCarloHall 5y ago
Delta Air Lines is imposing a $200 monthly healthcare surcharge on unvaccinated employees, citing an average cost of $50k for a COVID-related hospital stay, which were appreciably affecting company health care policy expenses [0]. I wonder when insurers will follow suit. All these totally preventable hospital stays aren’t cheap, and insurers aren’t charities. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-air-lines-to-impose-200-monthly-surcharge-for-unvaccinated-employees-add-testing-requirements-11629902326 https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-air-lines-to-impose-200-m...
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  is that legal, or is that like charging for a preexisting condition?
  - tibbydudeza 5y ago
    It is a preventable condition or choice - if you smoke they charge you more.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      Wait... your employer charges you money if you smoke? How the hell is that legal? What if you're fat? Or drink alcohol (but still sober at work)? I mean.. our european worker protections are overkill.. but compared to this, they still seem as a better option.
      - aikinai 5y ago
        It sounds like you're not familiar with the US system. The employer isn't charging for smoking, the health insurance, which is mostly provided through employers in America, is charging a higher premium for smoking since you will cost much more in future payouts.
      - galangalalgol 5y ago
        technically the insurer charges you more. And often they just give you credits towards healthcare costs if you don't smoke, instead of charging you more if you do. As to why this is acceptable, cultural views on smoking tobacco in the US hover just this side of pedophilia it seems like. I don't know a single person who smokes and has a professional career.
aschampion 5y ago
At one point in 2020 a majority of insured Americans treated for COVID (>80%) had the majority of their COVID-related treatment waived by the insurer. However, most insurers have been terminating these waivers since January. Also, to any non-Americans its always important to put this in the context that "waiving" here means you're still paying thousands per month (between employer and individual) in premiums and likely hundreds in various flavors of co-jargons anytime you step the foot in the door of a care provider even for "covered" care. Insurers always like to portray just providing the service you pay more for than you would in most of the rest of the world as altruism on their part. The major insurance companies providing these waivers (Anthem, UnitedHealth, etc.) all saw order $B profit increases over the pandemic.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Anthem profit margin is down: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ANTM/anthem/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ANTM/anthem/profit... UHC margins also do not indicate profiteering: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-group/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-g... Same with CVS/Humana/Cigna: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CVS/cvs-health/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CVS/cvs-health/pro... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/HUM/humana/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/HUM/humana/profit-... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CI/cigna/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CI/cigna/profit-ma... It is always interesting to me when people claim insurance companies earn a ton of profit when their profit margins are always in the 5% or lower range. How much smaller should their margins be? Even retail businesses like Walmart need a couple percent of profit margin to survive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - aschampion 5y ago
    I didn't say margin, I said profit, and you can click a tab over on any of those pages and see overall gross profit is up in 2020. What kind of rational baseline is assuming that increasing margin is the default neutral state? How is that a stable dynamic for any system?
kingsloi 5y ago
Based on how much my little girl’s ICU admission cost, https://kingsley.sh/posts/2021/two-weeks-in-the-icu-as-a-baby-with-heart-disease https://kingsley.sh/posts/2021/two-weeks-in-the-icu-as-a-bab... there is no way (in my mind) that their ICU admission will be free.
- retrac98 5y ago
  Sorry for your loss, nobody should have to go through that. How do people in the US who don’t have insurance get treatment for themselves or their family members in situations like this? It seems inconceivable to me that they or their kids are just expected to die?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    They will get treatment, assuming the hospital has capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an... And generally, if you have nothing, the government will pay for you. However, quality and quantity of healthcare will likely not be as high. The rough spot is in the middle when you have some assets, but not enough for a secure life, but do not have insurance, then you will have to forfeit your assets in order for the government aid to kick in, and then you are poor.
    - Ntrails 5y ago
      The interesting concern for me is always "i won't go see anyone about medical issue X because the copay/deductible structure dissuades me from checking". Even if you have a spare $800 for [insert tests here] you're going to be reluctant to spend it unless you're pretty confident it's necessary. Is this the source of significant delay in diagnosis? Does it increase or decrease overall costs of treatment? Does it meaningfully alter expected prognosis of the middle income US patients etc
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Depends on the individual’s finances. Preventative care such as annual wellness exams are mandated to be covered (i.e. free for insured) and you get a blood test with that. So presumably, you are catching most lifestyle or inherited or long term ailments there. By law, annual out of of pocket expenses are capped: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-limit/ https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li... However, based on the median income in the US, many Americans would have to think twice about scheduling a doctor’s appointment and being on the hook for an unexpected hundreds or thousands of dollars. It is all a form of rationing healthcare, so having people think twice about going to the doctor at the expense of some people’s health is part of the system.
SevenSigs 5y ago
I hope they get ruined because I get ruined paying for my health insurance.

You can be ensured or not, it depends. Honestly it’s pretty stupid to end up in ICU when something free has been offered to you in order to avoid just that, so people should just take their responsibility.

ekianjo 5y ago
> so people should just take their responsibility. if you get a serious adverse event following a vaccination, however unlikely, who pays for your medical expenses since the link with vaccines is always denied?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  One of the specific government programs set up for that purpose. https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    thanks. this is a clear answer.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It may also interest you to know that, despite claiming "the link with vaccines is always denied", the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen... awarded compensation in 42% of resolved claims, and has paid out multiple billions. Everyone, including the vaccine manufacturers, is aware of the possibility of rare reactions. This system exists because "no one will make vaccines because a jury of twelve lay people may award a $500M penalty because little Timmy got autism despite there being no link" is a national security threat.
- QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
  Why are you emotionally invested in trying to bump up COVID’s kill count? If you can explain the motive, maybe we can find an alternate way for you to work towards that goal with fewer casualties.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    Are you answering to a different message ?
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Do you also avoid seat belts because there are unlikely accident scenarios where they do harm?
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    Nope I am asking a simple question of who pays in this kind of situation.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Your health insurance, presumably. It's another argument for public health insurance. Understand that the expected benefit of getting COVID vaccines should be positive for everyone -- the expected harm from side effects should be less (often much less) than the expected harm from COVID infection. There could be public policy reasons for being generous with compensation for side effects, just to increase the vaccination rate, but I think that's a separate issue, and has more to do with the unequal distribution of benefit in a vaccinated population. It could make sense for the old to compensate the young, as the old get more benefit out of others being vaccinated.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago

Delta Air Lines is imposing a $200 monthly healthcare surcharge on unvaccinated employees, citing an average cost of $50k for a COVID-related hospital stay, which were appreciably affecting company health care policy expenses [0]. I wonder when insurers will follow suit. All these totally preventable hospital stays aren’t cheap, and insurers aren’t charities. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-air-lines-to-impose-200-monthly-surcharge-for-unvaccinated-employees-add-testing-requirements-11629902326 https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-air-lines-to-impose-200-m...

galangalalgol 5y ago
is that legal, or is that like charging for a preexisting condition?
- tibbydudeza 5y ago
  It is a preventable condition or choice - if you smoke they charge you more.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Wait... your employer charges you money if you smoke? How the hell is that legal? What if you're fat? Or drink alcohol (but still sober at work)? I mean.. our european worker protections are overkill.. but compared to this, they still seem as a better option.
    - aikinai 5y ago
      It sounds like you're not familiar with the US system. The employer isn't charging for smoking, the health insurance, which is mostly provided through employers in America, is charging a higher premium for smoking since you will cost much more in future payouts.
    - galangalalgol 5y ago
      technically the insurer charges you more. And often they just give you credits towards healthcare costs if you don't smoke, instead of charging you more if you do. As to why this is acceptable, cultural views on smoking tobacco in the US hover just this side of pedophilia it seems like. I don't know a single person who smokes and has a professional career.

aschampion 5y ago

At one point in 2020 a majority of insured Americans treated for COVID (>80%) had the majority of their COVID-related treatment waived by the insurer. However, most insurers have been terminating these waivers since January. Also, to any non-Americans its always important to put this in the context that "waiving" here means you're still paying thousands per month (between employer and individual) in premiums and likely hundreds in various flavors of co-jargons anytime you step the foot in the door of a care provider even for "covered" care. Insurers always like to portray just providing the service you pay more for than you would in most of the rest of the world as altruism on their part. The major insurance companies providing these waivers (Anthem, UnitedHealth, etc.) all saw order $B profit increases over the pandemic.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Anthem profit margin is down: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ANTM/anthem/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ANTM/anthem/profit... UHC margins also do not indicate profiteering: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-group/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-g... Same with CVS/Humana/Cigna: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CVS/cvs-health/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CVS/cvs-health/pro... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/HUM/humana/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/HUM/humana/profit-... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CI/cigna/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CI/cigna/profit-ma... It is always interesting to me when people claim insurance companies earn a ton of profit when their profit margins are always in the 5% or lower range. How much smaller should their margins be? Even retail businesses like Walmart need a couple percent of profit margin to survive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- aschampion 5y ago
  I didn't say margin, I said profit, and you can click a tab over on any of those pages and see overall gross profit is up in 2020. What kind of rational baseline is assuming that increasing margin is the default neutral state? How is that a stable dynamic for any system?

kingsloi 5y ago

Based on how much my little girl’s ICU admission cost, https://kingsley.sh/posts/2021/two-weeks-in-the-icu-as-a-baby-with-heart-disease https://kingsley.sh/posts/2021/two-weeks-in-the-icu-as-a-bab... there is no way (in my mind) that their ICU admission will be free.

retrac98 5y ago
Sorry for your loss, nobody should have to go through that. How do people in the US who don’t have insurance get treatment for themselves or their family members in situations like this? It seems inconceivable to me that they or their kids are just expected to die?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  They will get treatment, assuming the hospital has capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an... And generally, if you have nothing, the government will pay for you. However, quality and quantity of healthcare will likely not be as high. The rough spot is in the middle when you have some assets, but not enough for a secure life, but do not have insurance, then you will have to forfeit your assets in order for the government aid to kick in, and then you are poor.
  - Ntrails 5y ago
    The interesting concern for me is always "i won't go see anyone about medical issue X because the copay/deductible structure dissuades me from checking". Even if you have a spare $800 for [insert tests here] you're going to be reluctant to spend it unless you're pretty confident it's necessary. Is this the source of significant delay in diagnosis? Does it increase or decrease overall costs of treatment? Does it meaningfully alter expected prognosis of the middle income US patients etc
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Depends on the individual’s finances. Preventative care such as annual wellness exams are mandated to be covered (i.e. free for insured) and you get a blood test with that. So presumably, you are catching most lifestyle or inherited or long term ailments there. By law, annual out of of pocket expenses are capped: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-limit/ https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li... However, based on the median income in the US, many Americans would have to think twice about scheduling a doctor’s appointment and being on the hook for an unexpected hundreds or thousands of dollars. It is all a form of rationing healthcare, so having people think twice about going to the doctor at the expense of some people’s health is part of the system.

SevenSigs 5y ago

I hope they get ruined because I get ruined paying for my health insurance.