NY Times: the Financial Reality of Being Really Sick

In their own words

candrew said:
Going out on a limb here, but I'm saying that 44 million exceeds the "tiny sliver" designation.
Click to expand...

From the article:
The New York Times, the Commonwealth Fund and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health used the survey to examine the sliver of the American population who use the health care system the most.
Click to expand...
 
When I was in my mid-20's, I was luckily employed with a MC with excellent HI. I needed a routine outpatient procedure which went horribly wrong, resulting in over $250k in medical bills, follow up multi-month home health visits, and a final-fix surgery a year later. I had maybe $1500 in the bank at the time, and lived like most everyone at my age - paycheck to paycheck with a little credit card debt. Insurance covered almost everything - my out of pocket was less than $100.

If I had my current health plan back then... That would be two years back to back of me paying out-of-pocket deductibles of at least $5k, and undoubtedly arguments on some of the procedures, medications, etc. If I hit two years of out-of-pocket max i don't know that I'd have ever recovered financially. I would no doubt have had to declare bankruptcy.

I would have been in that sliver.
 
MichaelB said:
Yes. Healthcare insurance becomes affordable through subsidy, not health care cost containment.

To be fair, I suspect no matter what we do, the NYT (et al.) will find, and highlight, its shortcomings. No approach 'round the world is safe from that.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
In your words

Mdlerth said:
From the article:
Click to expand...

From your post: "It's a problem for a tiny sliver of the population."

I took that statement as your indication that the problem of medical debt affects a tiny sliver of the U.S. population. In light of the fact that an estimated 44 million Americans have stated that paying for their medical care is in fact a problem seems contradictory.

If I have misunderstood you, my apologies. I admit to not being the sharpest pencil in the drawer. In the interest of making sure that I draw the proper conclusion from your statement, a bit more elaboration would be helpful. If you believe that 44 million Americans represents a tiny sliver of the population, then in that case we'll just have to disagree.
 
Pleasant dreams, everybody

candrew said:
From your post: "It's a problem for a tiny sliver of the population."

I took that statement as your indication that the problem of medical debt affects a tiny sliver of the U.S. population. In light of the fact that an estimated 44 million Americans have stated that paying for their medical care is in fact a problem seems contradictory.

If I have misunderstood you, my apologies. I admit to not being the sharpest pencil in the drawer. In the interest of making sure that I draw the proper conclusion from your statement, a bit more elaboration would be helpful. If you believe that 44 million Americans represents a tiny sliver of the population, then in that case we'll just have to disagree.
Click to expand...

Thank you once again for your courteousness, but I'm worn out with going back to the linked articles and digging out the explanatory passages. If you read the NYT article carefully, and then follow Walt's link to "Bankruptcy: Myth vs Fact" you may understand what I've been trying - and failing in epic fashion! - to say.

But you're probably better off dropping the thread, which is what I'm going to do. Don't worry, the love is still there. Good night, all!
 
The title of the article is: "...The Financial Reality of Being Really Sick..."

Not to be provocative but I must ask: Reality for whom?
The excerpt says: "...The survey, of some of the country’s most seriously ill people, found that even with health insurance, more than a third of the respondents had spent all or most of their savings while sick."

So, over 60% didn't spend all their savings? This is like the "2 out of 10 Americans won't be able to xxxx" shtick.

Mentioned earlier, there's always going to be someone, somewhere who is seriously and legitimately affected but, again, I view this as another agenda piece that I've spent too much of my evening on.
 
MichaelB said:
Yes. Healthcare insurance becomes affordable through subsidy, not health care cost containment.
Click to expand...
In the context of health care, the term "affordable" has become shorthand for "individually affordable," as opposed to "affordable on a national level," (e.g as a percent of GDP, etc). Viewed this way, no matter what the cost of health care, it is affordable if individuals receive sufficient subsidies.



I understand the terminology, but I think it does risk obscuring some giant issues for the sake of brevity.
 
My friend had 8 bouts of cancer with insurance and her husband 2. They had a paid for home and savings. She got to sick to work and had to go on SSDI. They finally sold the house to pay medical bills. They died within a year of each other broke.
 
I think this thread is probably an "other" rather than "Health and Early Retirement". It is a politically charged topic.
 
TwoByFour said:
I think this thread is probably an "other" rather than "Health and Early Retirement". It is a politically charged topic.
Click to expand...
This whole discussion is just a thinly disguised rehash of many we've had here on more or less the same topic. One side thinks some Americans are too vulnerable to a medical emergency and the other side says, "maybe so, but it is really not my problem".

It seems like there is no constructive outcome from these discussions, they are just one more facet of the tribal wars.

Carry on.
 
We are vulnerable to a lot of things in addition to medical expenses which should be alleviated by ACA.

Just on top of my head, I can think of loss of income due to lay-offs, accidents, and of course illnesses. Then, we have seen people devastated by property loss caused by floods, hurricanes, wild fires, earthquakes, drought, sink holes, etc...

Thank goodness we have not seen REWahoo's asteroid, but any day now...
 
travelover said:
This whole discussion is just a thinly disguised rehash of many we've had here on more or less the same topic. One side thinks some Americans are too vulnerable to a medical emergency and the other side says, "maybe so, but it is really not my problem".

It seems like there is no constructive outcome from these discussions, they are just one more facet of the tribal wars.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Actually, in my case, the comments that I made in this thread would correspond with the opposite tribe than I often side with.

-gauss
 
joeea said:
There's no doubt in my mind that a small percent of folks who are insured still have trouble paying the deductibles and copays. And a small percent of folks lose work time due to their own illnesses or illnesses of their family.

I feel lucky that I'm not underinsured. My cancer infusions alone have cost between $22k and $28k each, not to mention all the diagnostics leading up to my diagnosis. I've had 10 so far with 2 more planned. My ACA plan meant that I had to pay a $22 co-pay for each visit and little else.

And I fear for a future where the best parts of the ACA are taken away and we go back to the days where you could be refused insurance (or pay through the nose) due to pre-existing conditions.


I'll be keeping all that in mind as I vote next month.
Click to expand...



I think we're missing the point. My friend had 10-12 chemo treatments at 25K per treatment (his facts told to a group of friends). Hospitals, health care professionals, drug companies are charging these amounts, not health insurance companies. HI companies are in it for profit, we are a capitalist society. The question here is what is the "real" cost of these procedures, medicines, scans, blood tests etc. Why is that information not reported in the news? That is public information!


Call 5 different hospitals and you will get 5 very different costs to the same procedure or test. And it's like pulling teeth to get that information. With a system so out of whack, why can't people who are under the poverty line proving it by net assets, get charged the "wholesale" price of healthcare? How does a blood test cost $150? Hospitals and insurance companies conspire (not meant in an evil way) to agree on a price after the HI companies contract with specific doctors and hospitals, There you get out of network charges. In network charges are pre negotiated.


BTW, I told my DH to take me to a DF who is a veterinarian when I'm in the shape of my last yellow lab at 13 yrs. old. Give me a nice quiet room, a few family members and let me go to sleep.
 
Teacher Terry said:
My friend had 8 bouts of cancer with insurance and her husband 2. They had a paid for home and savings. She got to sick to work and had to go on SSDI. They finally sold the house to pay medical bills. They died within a year of each other broke.
Click to expand...

This opens up a whole different issue that is part of the problem. treated for 8 bouts of cancer until you end up disabled and broke and still you die.

How does happen, is the medical profession so fixed on "we got this, let us try one more thing" that they lost sight of fact they are working with real humans? The fact that some of these cancer treatments leave you as a shell of a human and don't even cure the cancer... How did we get here?
 
ivinsfan said:
This opens up a whole different issue that is part of the problem. treated for 8 bouts of cancer until you end up disabled and broke and still you die.

How does happen, is the medical profession so fixed on "we got this, let us try one more thing" that they lost sight of fact they are working with real humans? The fact that some of these cancer treatments leave you as a shell of a human and don't even cure the cancer... How did we get here?
Click to expand...

We got here because health care in the U.S. is all about the money. It's a sellable commodity that is intentionally designed to be advantaged toward the seller.
 
ivinsfan said:
This opens up a whole different issue that is part of the problem. treated for 8 bouts of cancer until you end up disabled and broke and still you die.

How does happen, is the medical profession so fixed on "we got this, let us try one more thing" that they lost sight of fact they are working with real humans? The fact that some of these cancer treatments leave you as a shell of a human and don't even cure the cancer... How did we get here?
Click to expand...

I agree that the medical-industrial complex is out of control but there is also a lot of pressure from families and the patient to not give up. People are always hopeful that they can turn the corner and beat whatever it is. So reining in over-zealous doctors has to start with the patient saying "no more".
 
ivinsfan said:
This opens up a whole different issue that is part of the problem. treated for 8 bouts of cancer until you end up disabled and broke and still you die.

How does happen, is the medical profession so fixed on "we got this, let us try one more thing" that they lost sight of fact they are working with real humans? The fact that some of these cancer treatments leave you as a shell of a human and don't even cure the cancer... How did we get here?
Click to expand...

I do not blame just the medical profession. It's the patients too, who want to "fight" the incurable diseases no matter what costs.

Other countries have better control of the healthcare costs, because they know when it is hopeless and will not spend many 100K's to keep a terminal patient alive for another month. But here, people call that a "death squad".
 
I hope all had a good nights sleep last night dreaming of this discussion.

I am pretty neutral on this subject. I have been the recipient of great insurance and negotiated payments for my wife as she battled cancer for 15 years. I should have been bankrupt. Many things have changed since then on how health care is run.

Yes it's a game. Super high billings then the insurance companies pay some fraction. Medicare/Medicaid even less. You pay cash you get some huge discount.

Good health is many times a lottery win. Sure many of us have behaviors that cause us to need medical attention. Many just have bad luck and have a lifetime of pain.

I can't speak to each situation of the 1,495 people. Not sure what their jobs were, saving or spending habits. One of the first things I learned early in life was saving for an emergency. Wants vs needs.

I do know directly that some of my kids have benefited from the ACA and being subsidized. Though this system is greatly flawed there is ample opportunity for all to be insured if they sign up.

I was visiting my brother this weekend. We are at different ends of the political spectrum. Both of us agree that the system is flawed. We have different solutions. Both of us have good hearts.

Lastly I'm at the point where I've stopped reading a couple major papers. I don't put my head in the sand. I just feel I can't get a straight story from their reporters.
 
NW-Bound said:
I do not blame just the medical profession. It's the patients too, who want to "fight" the incurable diseases no matter what costs.

Other countries have better control of the healthcare costs, because they know when it is hopeless and will not spend many 100K's to keep a terminal patient alive for another month. But here, people call that a "death squad".
Click to expand...

I agree patients have a hand in it too but, compassionate medical care doesn't include literally treating people until they drop dead. IMO it's a cop out for doctors and hospitals to say " All I did was offer them a one in a million chance for a cure, not my fault they died a horrible death.
 
ivinsfan said:
I agree patients have a hand in it too but, compassionate medical care doesn't include literally treating people until they drop dead. IMO it's a cop out for doctors and hospitals to say " All I did was offer them a one in a million chance for a cure, not my fault they died a horrible death.
Click to expand...

If there's a lot of money to be made, it's hard to say no.

And when patients say "spend the money, doggone it" (which is not their own), well who wants to be the bad 3rd party to ask "for what?"
 
Ivansvan, this was over a period of 20 years so she was in remission for long periods of time and working for much of that. Her last bout she had early Alzheimer’s and her husband was dead so I didn’t treat the cancer. Her husband was trying to stay alive so he could take care of her and prevent her from going into a home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PointBreeze
  • Locked
So grateful for the ACA
3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
5K
braumeister
braumeister
Trooper
New Weight Loss/Obesity Drugs Could Transform Economy
9 10 11
Replies
251
Views
14K
mathjak107
M
PaunchyPirate
Helping an elderly parent stay on top of their financial accounts
Replies
24
Views
943
1242Vintage
1
C
Do any of you cut it really close in easy retirement?
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
8K
Koolau
Koolau
Qs Laptop
When Friends Claim They Need to Keep Working...and You are Doubtful
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
TheWizard
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom