5 ms·

So you want to pay $450 rather than $500 a month and in exchange when you get cancer they tell you to just go die rather than getting the treatment your doctor

So you want to pay $450 rather than $500 a month and in exchange when you get cancer they tell you to just go die rather than getting the treatment your doctor prescribes that could save you? Isn't the whole point of insurance covering that type of situation?

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Huh? I'm not currently planning to purchase health insurance in the US. Are you confused about my comment?
chii 3y ago
> Isn't the whole point of insurance covering that type of situation? it is, but i imagine the insurance company is expecting a certain cost for some expected treatments, and use that to calculate your life-time value as a customer. If a new treatment that has better outcomes, but is more expensive comes along, the insurance company may stand to lose money, and thus, they prefer denying such a treatment and only offer the "old" one. At least, that is how i would rationalize the behaviour. Whether this is actually the reason or not, remains to be seen.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Maybe we just shouldn't allow medical decisions to be made by people whose primary motivation is corporate profits. Socialized medicine certainly has its issues, but if there has to be a "death panel", I'd rather it be composed of doctors than a bunch of bean counters.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Insurance companies employ lots of doctors and pharmacists to review these decisions. Pretty sure it is a legal requirement, and they have to have active US licenses.
    - carl_dr 3y ago
      The problem is the word “employ” in that sentence. They are going to do what their boss tells them to.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        I don’t think it can be expected to have doctors all the way up the chain. Even in the UK’s nationalized healthcare system, the chief is not a doctor, and I assume many under her are not either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Pritchard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Pritchard Even if the chief was the doctor, they would be getting their funds from the political leaders, who are most likely not all going to be doctors.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Huh? I'm not currently planning to purchase health insurance in the US. Are you confused about my comment?

chii 3y ago

> Isn't the whole point of insurance covering that type of situation? it is, but i imagine the insurance company is expecting a certain cost for some expected treatments, and use that to calculate your life-time value as a customer. If a new treatment that has better outcomes, but is more expensive comes along, the insurance company may stand to lose money, and thus, they prefer denying such a treatment and only offer the "old" one. At least, that is how i would rationalize the behaviour. Whether this is actually the reason or not, remains to be seen.

kelnos 3y ago
Maybe we just shouldn't allow medical decisions to be made by people whose primary motivation is corporate profits. Socialized medicine certainly has its issues, but if there has to be a "death panel", I'd rather it be composed of doctors than a bunch of bean counters.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Insurance companies employ lots of doctors and pharmacists to review these decisions. Pretty sure it is a legal requirement, and they have to have active US licenses.
  - carl_dr 3y ago
    The problem is the word “employ” in that sentence. They are going to do what their boss tells them to.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      I don’t think it can be expected to have doctors all the way up the chain. Even in the UK’s nationalized healthcare system, the chief is not a doctor, and I assume many under her are not either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Pritchard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Pritchard Even if the chief was the doctor, they would be getting their funds from the political leaders, who are most likely not all going to be doctors.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]