12 ms·
'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs
https://archive.is/UwqzL https://archive.is/UwqzL
- mmarian 11mo agohttps://archive.is/UwqzL https://archive.is/UwqzL
- duxup 11mo ago>Allen is herself a casualty. While she used to pay $487.50 a month, her new healthcare plan, with reduced coverage, has monthly premiums of $1,967.50. Brutal. Meanwhile the White House calls it all "fake news".
- pxmpxm 11mo agoIt's always cost ~$2k a month, the only difference is the previous administration thought everyone else should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. I feel like we need a perpetual PSA here that moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper.
- fzeroracer 11mo agoNo, it definitely did not always cost $2k a month.
- pxmpxm 11mo agoBronze plans with $5-6k deductibles have always ran more than what people paid for rent. Healthcare is the one thing that's outpaced inflation in higher education.
- mbrubeck 11mo agoSo first you say it has always cost this much, but in the next breath you say that its cost has outpaced a high rate of inflation. Mathematically, these can't both be true.
- pxmpxm 11mo agoA) Inflation in healthcare costs is well documented and unrivaled B) Biden papered over A) with "temporary" covid subsidies in 2021 and those are going away, revealing A) again
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- Retric 11mo agoVery good unsubsidized health insurance wasn’t anywhere close to 2k/month inflation adjusted the last time I used COBRA to continue my employer’s insurance after getting laid off. The underlying issue is inflation adjusted healthcare related spending increased 6x per person since 1970. Some of that is an increase in quality, but middleman are a huge factor.
- antisthenes 11mo ago> Bronze plans with $5-6k deductibles have always ran more than what people paid for rent. Unsubsidized bronze plans were in the $250-350 range in 2016/2017. That's nowhere near rent.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> the previous administration thought everyone should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. Moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper No, but it means I can't pay for a first-class ticket while someone else survives. I'll take that deal.
- harmmonica 11mo agoIt doesn't add to the discussion, but an anonymous upvote wouldn't convey my appreciation for how apropos this comment is.
- nradov 11mo agoI support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-government-shutdown.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g... I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someone who actually needs it. (Of course the real problem is healthcare costs accelerating out of control. Insurance subsidies won't fix that problem. In fact they make it worse by encouraging healthcare providers and drug companies to raise prices even faster.)
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line These are legitimate complaints. Trashing the system because it's overly generous in some respects is insane.
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo agoI’m one of those retirees. It’s OK. I was prepared for this, and can afford it, but a hell of a lot of others on a fixed income, are totally screwed. > Give the money to someone who actually needs it. Like billionaires. They are the ones that really need it, and they get it; every time. Those yachts don’t pay for themselves. If anyone thinks poors will be getting any help, they are fooling themselves. Helping poor people is quite unpopular, in the US (where they conveniently forget that most of them are born in the US white, but politicians make it seem as if they are all dark-skinned immigrants). Many of the hardest-hit states will be ones that enthusiastically voted for this.
- almosthere 11mo agowhen the gov foots the bill, there's no reason to have competition.
- ChicagoDave 11mo agoBefore 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare. Worked pretty good.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> Before 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare Wait, what changed in 1985?
- ChicagoDave 11mo agoHMO laws allowed for-profit healthcare insurance. Groups of doctors banded together and carved out exclusive contracts to sets of hospitals and providers. Before this I recall seeing $7 taken out of my paycheck and there were no deductibles or copays. Meds were $5.
- tirant 11mo agoBefore 1985 healthcare costs were very low, and population was way younger.
- marcus_holmes 11mo agoThe govt also acts as a monopsony and forces lower prices. Same effect [0] different mechanism. [0] actually a better effect - the govt actually does force lower prices, whereas competition is subject to all sorts of other effects where it doesn't actually function to lower prices.
- hiddencost 11mo ago[flagged]
- silisili 11mo agoAs a supporter of single payer(or really, anything else), I support this move. When half the nation is on subsidized healthcare they aren't so likely to care about costs. Now, you have a lot more angry people, and hopefully that leads to real reform, because what we have now is unsustainable, even to upper middle class families.
- p0w3n3d 11mo agoGuy from Poland here. What happened to ObamaCare? I thought you got finally a primary healthcare for all?
- ponooqjoqo 11mo agoObamaCare (actually the Affordable Care Act: ACA) is a band-aid solution. It's a way to at least ensure that everyone has a pathway to insurance if they have enough money. Basically, the government negotiates some plans with private insurers and makes them available to the general population. It's subsidized, but the new budget has drastically decreased these subsidies and so the cost to enroll in the ACA is about to go up for people who want to get insurance through their marketplace.
- runako 11mo agoQuick summary: the US does not have anything approaching a modern healthcare system. (And likely will not for quite some time due to a set of structural factors.) Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act or ACA) was an attempt to expand coverage and slow the rate of increase of costs. It did the former but less well with the latter. One other thing the ACA did is stop the scourge of scam insurers. This is a thing where people would pay for "insurance" and then find out later that their "insurance" did not actually afford them any meaningful coverage. The ACA tried to close a set of loopholes and overall regulate the insurance market more closely. Anybody reading this from outside the US probably lives in a place where low-cost healthcare is more accessible than it is in the US.
- dboreham 11mo agoQuick note that for people aged 65 and over the US does have a healthcare system somewhat like other developed nations.
- runako 11mo agoGiven that older people tend to be some of the main cost drivers in healthcare, it's sort of silly that we cover them and then refuse to allow younger (cheaper) people to opt in to the same system & perhaps defray costs that way.
- tempodox 11mo ago> Meanwhile the White House calls it all "fake news". The truth is a lie and only government lies are the truth. Orwell would be so proud.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- geerlingguy 11mo agoI was paying around $1200/month last year (a little under that with subsidy). This year I'm paying $2100/month for a family of five, on a roughly equivalent plan. Except, none of the options in my state allow me to visit the PCP I switched to this year (since none of the plans last year covered my PCP from the year before). So I guess I'm on a primary care physician merry go round :D I am at least able to have my main specialty doctor and the drug I take to keep me in remission from Crohn's disease, and my kids' pediatrician is covered. But I can't imagine what people have to sacrifice to keep any kind of coverage (with high deductible and horrible coinsurance and prescription drug coverage) for their families if they don't have a decent income :(
- nradov 11mo agoYou're still allowed to visit the same PCP although it might not be covered, or covered out-of-network with a higher patient responsibility.
- Avicebron 11mo agoExcuse me, but how in the world were you able to afford 1200/month, you know that's like cheap rent right?
- darth_avocado 11mo agoMy Employer sponsored supposedly nice insurance (I say supposedly because they keep being a pain in the ass for pretty much everything) is $200+ per paycheck for me and my spouse, i.e. ~$450/month. That is after my employer covers most of the cost. This stuff is ridiculous.
- zdragnar 11mo agoIf you're getting health insurance through your employer, that's a pretty standard price (counting both your contribution and your employer's together). I'm probably going to be self employed for 2026 and a cheap-ish (not the cheapest, but probably below the average) plan for my family is going to be a little under $1500 / month. It's pre-tax money, which helps a wee bit, but it is definitely expensive. If I made less money, I'd qualify for subsidies, but I don't, so that's just something that needs to be paid in full unfortunately.
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoI read healthcare now amounts to buying a new car every year. (Except, of course, nothing new in your driveway, nothing to resell, etc.)
- runako 11mo agoThis is misleading. Health insurance premiums cost about as much as buying a new car every year. Healthcare is generally on top of those premium payments.
- frogperson 11mo agoYep, you and your employer pay $3500/month for the premium. Then you as an individual have a $12k to $15k per year deductible before the insurance even kicks in.
- jdlshore 11mo agoThat’s grossly exaggerated. Individual deductibles are limited by law to ~$6500 even on the worst plans. And no one is paying $3500 per month for individual coverage on one of those plans. The actual rates depend on age and zip code, but I’d be very surprised if they’re that high anywhere. To see the actual costs for yourself, go to healthcare.gov. The “bronze” plans are the ones with high deductibles. If you’re young and healthy, a high-deductible plan combined with an HSA is a very good idea.
- runako 11mo ago> Individual deductibles are limited by law to ~$6500 even on the worst plans This was not the case for 2025, so I just did a search to determine whether you are referencing a new law. No, you are just flat wrong on this claim. In Georgia (georgiaaccess.gov), the first bronze plan I looked at has an individual deductible of $10,600 (family deductible is $21,200). The plan's SBC is available to the public[1]. > no one is paying $3500 per month for individual coverage on one of those plans You are correct, but also many people are not single and live in family units where the family unit is on the hook for $3,500 per month. 1 - https://sbc.anthem.com/dpsdeeplink/deepLink/AnthemBronzeBlueValueHMO10600350VirtualPCP0SelectDrugs/8TMM/English/DG166709463219.pdf https://sbc.anthem.com/dpsdeeplink/deepLink/AnthemBronzeBlue...
- buckle8017 11mo ago[flagged]
- mulderc 11mo agoHave you been on an ACA bronze plan? I wouldn’t consider it a Cadillac plan nor did I find it covering lots of unnecessary things.
- pxmpxm 11mo agoBronze plan is shitty catastrophic insurance at like 5x the actuarial cost to try to fund risk pool and all the mandated benefits thst the o/p alluded to
- fzeroracer 11mo agoCan you explain what these mandated benefits you think shouldn't be covered?
- pxmpxm 11mo agoOff the top of my head maternity/neonatal/family planning type of benefits are mandatory for obamacare compliant plans. That essentially outlawed all the affordable young adult catastrophic plans.
- runako 11mo agoI have spent some time looking at healthcare costs, but I have not seen maternity/neonatal/family planning as a significant driver of costs. It would be surprising if so, given falling birthrates and growth in the elderly population. Do you have data that shows this is the case?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- fzeroracer 11mo ago
- temptemptemp111 11mo ago[dead]
- dogemaster2028 11mo ago[flagged]
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo agoMine has tripled, but last year, I was actually getting some govt help. Not this year. I am fortunate to be able to afford it, but it’s just less than my mortgage. This month is when all hell breaks loose, because people will get their first invoice at the new rate. They already know how much, but seeing it in the form of a demand, will drive it home. Obamacare is like the NHS, in the UK. Everyone likes to bitch about it, but woe unto the politician that messes with it.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- harmmonica 11mo agoThe equally insidious thing is that when they get hit with the new premium anyone who took better coverage, like a silver plan for the ACA, will likely be "forced" to downgrade to a lower (bronze) plan, which means that when they actually get services their costs will further skyrocket (higher deductibles and out of pockets). Talking about all hell breaking loose... Marjorie Taylor Greene announces her resignation specifically because of rising health care costs (yeah, I'm cynical,there's maybe more to it). Mamdani gets elected on a platform that's essentially "shit costs too much." Maybe folks on both sides are starting to wake up. A guy can dream...
- salawat 11mo agoMTG just got her pension. I doubt healthcare costs have anything substantively to do with it. Someone just wants to avoid digging a hole any deeper than they have.
- sharts 11mo agoIsn’t obamacare what caused all these problems in the first place? NHS is public. Obamacare was just a blank check to private companies
- ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago> Isn’t obamacare what caused all these problems in the first place? I don’t think so, but it’s a fairly poor attempt to address the industry problems. It’s a lash-up “solution” to a problem caused by our entire healthcare structure. > Obamacare was just a blank check to private companies And healthcare providers. No one wants to fix the real issue, so this was the only thing all those lobbyists would allow. That doesn’t change the fact that it has actually become quite popular.
- choeger 11mo agoWhere does all that money go to, though? Is there a rich caste of doctors or pharmaceutical shareholders that don't need to work and live off these dividends? Or is the system so inefficient that most people in it aren't contributing to actual health care?
- dboreham 11mo agoBoth. Also there's a culture of infinite consumption of medical services.
- nradov 11mo agoIf you want to understand where the money is actually going then this Peter Attia Drive podcast episode with Dr. Saum Sutaria is the best high level overview that I've heard. Seriously it's worth listening to and will clear up a lot of the misconceptions that many people have. https://peterattiamd.com/saumsutaria/ https://peterattiamd.com/saumsutaria/
- silexia 11mo agoDoctors are by far the highest paid professional occupation in America. The AMA is the most powerful trade union in history and restricts the number of new doctors, pushing up prices.
- simianwords 11mo agoI have changed my mind on this after looking at the data. Not much cost can be attributed to the doctors.
- trashface 11mo agoWhat data was that? Here is some from the BLS: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/highest-paying.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/highest-paying.htm Highest 20 occupations by median annual income, the bottom is pilots, everyone else is a medical specialty.
- 11mo ago
- czhu12 11mo agoOne thing that I’ve been trying to understand about this discourse: Is the sum of the increase in costs some people are now paying greater than the subsidies that previously existed? In other words: was there always a massive bill to be paid here, but it was just previously socialized and hidden in the form of taxes/ public debt? Or does the act of subsidizing it actually decrease the total?
- nradov 11mo agoYes to both. High costs were previously partly hidden by subsidies for some consumers purchasing individual or family policies on state ACA exchanges, and now many of them will be forced to pay something closer to the true market price. But just like with college tuition, when the government throws money at a problem that ends up causing costs to explode without permanently improving affordability.
- robocat 11mo ago> true market price There can be no market clearing price, because healthcare demand is unlimited. In some countries supply is rationed by using different means such as waiting lists, budgets for funding, or even corruption (I witnessed this in Cuba).
- mritterhoff 11mo ago> because healthcare demand is unlimited. How's that? Beyond some level of care I suspect demand drops of a cliff. No one goes to the doctor for the fun of it.
- atmavatar 11mo agoI'm sure they're talking about necessary healthcare - e.g., cancer drugs, insulin, dialysis, heart surgery, etc. When giving the option of parting ways with some more money or dying, virtually no one is going to choose the latter. Unfortunately, the US healthcare system is set up to extract maximum capital from people who interact with it. Worse: it's not alone. For example, the reason food in the US has so much sugar, salt, and fat in it is that the food industry has carefully engineered processed foods to be more addictive so people will buy more of it. We live in one of the most exploitative societies in the world, and it's only getting worse over time.
- Workaccount2 11mo agoPrivate equity should be banned from healthcare. What could go wrong putting a bunch of finance bros at the wheel of a "Pay this amount or suffer/die" industry?
- nradov 11mo agoPE is a convenient whipping boy but it's not the main problem. There has been so much consolidation of health systems and other provider organizations in some regions that they now effectively have monopolies, allowing them to jack up prices. The effect is largely the same whether the owner is a PE firm or a non-profit foundation. In order to counteract that we would need much more vigorous antitrust enforcement, which doesn't seem politically likely.
- klipklop 11mo agoIsn’t it fair to argue that it’s PE doing all this consolidation?
- nradov 11mo agoNo, it's not fair to argue that. While PE has done some roll ups with certain specialties in certain areas the big health systems are mostly not owned by PE firms. In some areas they're literally owned by churches. I'm not defending abusive PE practices here but if we want to fix anything we need to be clear about what's actually happening.
- venturecruelty 11mo agoI'm so sick of this trope. "It's the insurance companies!" "No, it's private equity!" "No, it's the PBMs!" I don't care. Jesus Christ, going to the doctor is rapidly becoming unattainable for more and more people, including the PMC now, and all of the rich people are simply pointing at each other saying "it's the other guy!".
- almosthere 11mo agoBurn it all down, start over.
- jameslk 11mo agoAt what point does it become a better financial decision to do telehealth and medical procedures completely in a different country? Can you be health insured outside of the country you live?
- BrenBarn 11mo agoPeople do do that in some limited cases, but it's often impractical. Two common cases are a) there is a need for urgent/emergency care; or b) the patient is generally frail and infirm. In these cases it can be impossible or impractical to arrange for treatment outside the US. That's leaving aside the logistical difficulty of arranging it (plus the costs for travel, etc. associated with carrying out the plan).
- venturecruelty 11mo agoNever, because the person who cleans your toilet cannot simply hop on a flight to Mexico every time she needs surgery. But that's also not a great solution for society, to have the software developer caste be the only ones who can afford medicine by taking an expensive vacation.
- johnnienaked 11mo agoIronically, a great many people from public systems actually come here to pay for procedures they cannot get or have to wait ages for.
- beej71 11mo agoSometimes it doesn't matter about the insurance if the price is right. Medical tourism is a thing already.
- cubefox 11mo agoIt should be mentioned that the US has very high wages, and even when subtracting substantial health care insurance cost, the income likely remains higher than what people earn in most other countries.
- Insanity 11mo agoYou should go tell that to the waiters who are working for tips. Reads a bit like you’re in a bubble. I have friends in the States who work in education, construction, and hospitality. I similarly have friends working in those fields in EU. I’d say the ones in EU are better off _and_ don’t worry about healthcare. Not to mention you get actual vacation time in Europe and a higher standard of living generally.
- deepthaw 11mo agoyes, but the people in europe aren't free(tm) /s
- disdi 11mo agohow exactly ?
- protocolture 11mo agoInsufficient gunshots per diabetes.
- dboreham 11mo agoSee /s flag ?
- disdi 11mo agoSorry not good with the recognizing these.
- deepthaw 11mo agoit's sarcasm. a lot of arguments against social services like universal health care boil down to "well taxation is theft and therefore they're not actually free because they pay higher taxes"
- OhioMan2943 11mo agoIt's weird to me that americans, especially educated professional americans, have become much more quiet in their online presence due to all the crisis they are facing- what we have now is pretty different
- frankest 11mo agoIn case you are wandering where the money goes. If you need a gall bladder removed or an appendix removed the bill to you might be $10,000-30,000 but the surgeon, for all of their care and time with you, is compensated less than $100.
- mtoner23 11mo agoI'm confident a surgeon in America is paid more than 100$ for a surgery. They are paid about 400k a year on average. Do the math yourself. On the other hand you provided no details as to where the money actually goes. It's not a simple proble, and part of the problem is that our doctors are paid a lot more than in peer nations
- nradov 11mo agoBullshit. Even Medicare will pay a surgeon about $600 for CPT code 44970 and commercial health plans are higher than that.
- KevinMS 11mo agoI did get my gall bladder removed in July, and I know paid my surgeon a lot more than a 100 bucks, which was just the smaller deductible portion of the bill.
- dumbmrblah 11mo agoIt’s actually about $600 just for the surgery. It’s about 10 RVUs x $60 per RVU. You add some RVU modifiers to get it to about $1000. Your point still stands, but it’s still a bit more than $100 Source: I’m a MD
- p0w3n3d 11mo agoI have some questions but I don't want to offend anybody. Aren't there any methods to contract the healthcare to lower the prices down? I heard that in UK they have some requirements that the prices must not go higher than... For a given type of service. Also I read a lot of articles that giving a tablet to a hospitalised person costs 20-50 bucks and people are generally running away from ambulances to not pay
- dboreham 11mo agoCorrupt congress people will vote down any such proposals.
- russdill 11mo agoIt's a twisty maze of passages, all alike as they say. They have entire classes of certifications for understanding how medical and insurance billing works in this country.
- beej71 11mo agoJapan has something to that effect. There are ways to make it happen.
- rimbo789 11mo agoNationalize health care. Doctors should work for the government, hospitals should be owned by the government; for profit health care is a scam.
- johnnienaked 11mo agoYour taxes would double, and don't even bother trying to say they wouldn't literally every country with public health care pays twice as much as we do in tax
- beej71 11mo agoWe pay more tax for healthcare in the US than virtually anyone else. Last I looked, only Norway had us beat in terms of taxes for healthcare.
- ArtemZ 11mo agoThen how our taxes are lower on average than most other developed countries?
- beej71 11mo agoBecause we pay less tax for other things; for example, making post-secondary education affordable. Our taxpayer-funded system for healthcare-over-65 costs us more than Germany's taxpayer-funded system for healthcare-over-0.
- johnnienaked 11mo agoOur incomes are far higher too. Health care in the US isn't perfect, but public systems aren't either. The flaws of private health care seem to be a favorite target by people who are biased against the US.
- johnnienaked 11mo agoThe average cost per person is more in the US (quite a bit more), but as with all statistics the devil is in the details. In a public system like Canada, while the average cost for health care per person is lower, if you make above average income you are paying more than average in taxes, and hence more for (everyone else's) health care. Combine that with a far lower average income across the whole country than even the poorest US states, and the relative impact on you can actually be far higher. In my case my effective tax rate was about 45%, which meant I was paying 4-6x average taxes, most of which went to health care. I haven't lived in European countries, but it's virtually certain to be a similar story.
- s5300 11mo ago[dead]
- ETH_start 11mo agoThe root cause: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Healthcare-administrators-growth-in-the-US-Healthcare-administrators-growth-by-3200_fig1_332290300 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Healthcare-administrator... "Healthcare administrator's growth in the US. Healthcare administrator's growth by 3200% between 1975 and 2010 compared to 150% Physician growth according to Athena Health analysis of data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Center of Health Statistics, and the United States Census Bureau's Current Population survey in accordance to [26]. Admin: administration; HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; HITECH Act: Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act; DRGs: diagnosis-related group's." The only class of medical services that has become more affordable over the last 50 years is cosmetic procedures and laser eye surgery: https://healthblog.ncpathinktank.org/why-cant-the-market-for-medical-care-work-like-cosmetic-surgery/ https://healthblog.ncpathinktank.org/why-cant-the-market-for...
- simianwords 11mo agoWhat value addition do the administrators provide? It might be helpful to understand why competing hospitals still find it useful to employ these people even if the cost is so high. If a competing hospital can provide equivalent service while also not spending so much on an administrator, why didn't they already do it?
- fragmede 11mo agoThe administrative overhead is necessary in order to get money from the insurance companies. Without the administrators too administrate and fill out copious amounts of paperwork, the hospital won't get paid by the insurance companies, and if the hospital don't get no money, they can't pay their staff, and staff tend to like getting paid.
- Delphiza 11mo agoThis is how the world ends. Administrators on both sides being replaced by AI and consuming all the worlds available compute arguing with each other about healthcare bills.
- protocolture 11mo agoI find the US healthcare "system" to be an interesting topic. More nuanced than people think. It honestly seems like the worst way to run anything. Like I honestly cant see who its for, other than maybe US Corporations on the list of approved medical vendors. Like, putting on my "Lives in a free(ish) healthcare country" hat, it looks bonkers from that angle. But even from a more libertarian mode, the whole thing looks daft from that angle too.
- venturecruelty 11mo agoIf you want to know whom US healthcare is for, look at who makes the most money from it. There's your answer.
- protocolture 11mo ago>other than maybe US Corporations on the list of approved medical vendors. Think I hung a lantern on that
- nradov 11mo agoThere is no US healthcare "system" in the sense of having a cohesive entity pursuing a unified goal. It's a bunch of separate entities each pursuing their own goals, often in conflict with each other. If we were designing a healthcare system from scratch it obviously wouldn't look anything like what we have today. But we arrived here through a process that economists call "path dependence", and this makes it stubbornly resistant to systemic improvements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence
- protocolture 11mo agoThus the quotes, but thanks for the link about path dependance, thats a concept I have been aware of but unable to name for a long time. Lucky 10000.
- harmmonica 11mo agoThe US, today, is set up very well for wealthy people. The health care system works great for them. Their doctors are amongst the best in the world. Same with the hospitals they use. The costs are manageable if not reasonable for all of those people. And you can actually go beyond health care and find that almost everything in the US is pretty high quality for wealthy people. Housing, their neighborhoods, their schools, etc. That might help explain why the system is set up the way it is. Everything cascades from there.
- venturecruelty 11mo agoYeah, it sucks living in a society where the people in power have contempt for you and your family, doesn't it.
- silexia 11mo agoWe desperately need to vastly increase the number of physicians in this country to decrease costs. The AMA is the most powerful trade union in history and has locked the number of new doctors a year for many years now. Restricting supply for a service with inelastic demand skyrockets prices and lines their pockets.
- nradov 11mo agoBullshit. The AMA is a voluntary membership organization, not a trade union. They have no power to set prices or engage in collective bargaining. The immediate bottleneck on producing more physicians is limited Medicare funding for residency slots. Every year some students graduate from medical school with an MD but are unable to practice medicine because they don't get matched to a residency program (some do get matched the following year). At one point the AMA did lobby Congress to restrict that funding but they reversed position several years back. https://savegme.org/ https://savegme.org/
- silexia 11mo agoWho lobbies for the regulations that limit funding for residency and have these ridiculous regulations to start with?
- nradov 11mo agoWhich ridiculous regulations? Can you give us a specific CFR reference? I don't understand your question.
- loeg 11mo ago> At one point the AMA did lobby Congress to restrict that funding but they reversed position several years back. Yes, this is one of the cartel/union-like behaviors people complain about with the AMA. There are more examples: https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-practice-lobbying/ https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-p...
- s5300 11mo ago
- tejaallu 11mo ago[dead]
- tejaallu 11mo ago[dead]
- nacozarina 11mo agostopped buying insurance when the co-pays became unaffordable and you never find a real doctor anymore anyway
- alecco 11mo agoUnpopular opinion: Evil and greedy insurers are not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the socialized costs of sugar drinks, junk food, and sedentary life. The food industry operates like a drug cartel who starts the pipeline getting children addicted. That combined with outrageously expensive magic pill healthcare. A situation partly caused because doctors can't tell patients they are too fat and lazy. Because feelings and hate-crime. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7524435/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7524435/ (I think their 27% figure is way too conservative) It's like the worst possible combination of free market capitalism/libertarianism with social liberalism.
- mikewarot 11mo agoI'm expecting all of my early social security payment plus a bit of my spouses to pay insurance next year. This is insane.
- mikewarot 11mo agoThe root cause of this is, in my opinion, that in 2009 instead of getting the Healthcare system that Obama promised, we got the one that Rahm Emanuel substituted for reasons unknown. I will never forgive Rahm for this sin. Actually socialized medicine would give us better outcomes for less spending. Instead we have a pork barrel project that has become "too big to fail". Eventually we'll get Medicare for all, but it'll be hell in the meanwhile.