3 ms·

>> If having employer-based care is the only way to survive, then what that really means -- since money is fungible, really -- is that having the privilege of b

>> If having employer-based care is the only way to survive, then what that really means -- since money is fungible, really -- is that having the privilege of being well-compensated is the only way to have effective healthcare. Anecdotally, it seems to be the current and foreseeable future. I had a co-worker a couple years ago that had an undiagnosed condition (lupus) for many years because he couldn't afford healthcare. Once he had insurance, he was able to pursue various doctors for help. This is the pattern I've seen. >> the costs of healthcare are ultimately still borne by "you" Yes, and always will be, but costs have ben obfuscated for years. For-profit health insurance is one of the big issues, in my opinion [1]. Profit-making is largely apathetic to patient outcomes. I have no idea how to realistically change this current structure. [1]: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit.html https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-health-insurance...

zamfi 5y ago
> Yes, and always will be, but costs have ben obfuscated for years. For-profit health insurance is one of the big issues, in my opinion [1]. I have no kind words for for-profit health insurance, having been burned by the industry myself. Being for-profit definitely doesn't help, but the non-profit insurers in the US are not much better. The truth is, the incentives are terrible all around, including -- and you won't read this in Stanford Medicine's quarterly magazine -- the fact that we train far too few doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, work them far too hard while not using their time well, and pay them very, very generously. Then again, the cost of higher education has grown tremendously too, without (that many) for-profits taking a cut, and that's an industry where we face no shortage of qualified professors, work them harder (oddly) the less they get paid, and pay the ones teaching the most classes, well, let's just say it's not "very generously". Perhaps the major commonality is that the people getting the service are often not the ones paying (at least, up front) -- either insurers or lenders are? That and also these are both highly human-capital-intensive industries.

zamfi 5y ago

> Yes, and always will be, but costs have ben obfuscated for years. For-profit health insurance is one of the big issues, in my opinion [1]. I have no kind words for for-profit health insurance, having been burned by the industry myself. Being for-profit definitely doesn't help, but the non-profit insurers in the US are not much better. The truth is, the incentives are terrible all around, including -- and you won't read this in Stanford Medicine's quarterly magazine -- the fact that we train far too few doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, work them far too hard while not using their time well, and pay them very, very generously. Then again, the cost of higher education has grown tremendously too, without (that many) for-profits taking a cut, and that's an industry where we face no shortage of qualified professors, work them harder (oddly) the less they get paid, and pay the ones teaching the most classes, well, let's just say it's not "very generously". Perhaps the major commonality is that the people getting the service are often not the ones paying (at least, up front) -- either insurers or lenders are? That and also these are both highly human-capital-intensive industries.