• WashedOver@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    11 months ago

    At times I wonder if medically assisted suicides are frowned upon due to not being able to further drain the money out of patients and their extended credit lines.

    • thantik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You don’t have to wonder any longer. You’ve figured it out. Take the morality out of many political decisions and you have the right answer. Abortions? – nobody gives a shit about those children. It’s a convenient cover so they don’t have to say “Mothers are killing the thing that we will enslave and drain later on in the economy!” Everyone says that they care about the child until it’s born – they don’t even care before that point. And the lack of care/suffering/poverty of the child afterwards is the point of exploitation. So the system is working as intended. They need more workers, they need to siphon every ounce of production out of those workers.

      • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Abortions? – nobody gives a shit about those children. It’s a convenient cover so they don’t have to say “Mothers are killing the thing that we will enslave and drain later on in the economy!"

        What sort of purpose does it serve to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when the fetus has a Fatal fetal abnormality?

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s for the useful idiots who follow these politicians to believe that those politicians’ choices are driven by moral principles rather than cold personal upside maximization and a sociopathic disregard for others: for appearances’ sake, same as going around kissing babies and shaking the hands of people they look down on.

          This might sound crazy to any normal person because normal people wouldn’t sacrifice others like that merely for the sake of “the message”, but sociopaths don’t feel any guilt or shame when they hurt or harm others, so they’re capable of sacrificing others to quite an extreme level merelly for some minor benefits to themselves, if the victims are powerless to reciprocate (which in this case they are).

        • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          It gives conservatives something to jack off about.

          Violence is the only reasonable response.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          What sort of purpose does it serve to force a woman to carry a pregnancy

          One sterile woman is a good exchange for 10 babies born in poverty who will join the Army.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The policy creates orphans more than it creates a population boom. And eventually people do find ways to prevent/stop pregnancies they’re just more dangerous and you see small bump in births then they go down as women die. With more women dying on their 3rd or 4th child then you get more kids who are ophaned.

            The strategic problem is nobody wants orphans so what happens? They get abused or fend for themselves and become unstable. Ain’t many of them going to join the army.

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                What I’m saying tho is the bump is negligable and small, if it exists at all for abortion. Its actually the fight against schools and education that will bring meat for the meat grinder.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’re also frowned upon because it’s pretty cruel to tell someone “well, you could just die” because they can’t afford medical treatments or a place to live.

      • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        How is that any different than it is now? You can choose to die with dignity, or, in the current system, drain your funds, your families funds, put everyone in debt, THEN die.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Rush Limbaugh taught conservatives to hate universal health insurance because doctors would tell you to just die.

        • WaxiestSteam69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not on topic but I recently listened to the Rush Limbaugh episodes of “Behind the Bastards”. I didn’t think I could dislike Rush more than I already did but I found out he was worse than I thought.

  • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    11 months ago

    I remember when we bought a house 8 years ago (seems like a lifetime now) talking to the mortgage broker and he basically said they straight-up ignore medical debt because everyone has it and nobody would ever get a loan if it was considered. It’s utterly insane to me how the wealthiest nation in the world can’t keep its citizens healthy and out of debt.

      • buzz86us@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        yes they do it cheaper because people aren’t afraid of going to the doctor and getting a $500 bill because the doctor’s assistant that was there for 10 minutes is out of network

      • Quereller@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In Switzerland healthcare, is not bad but expensive. Insurance is mandatory and the same fee for every income. I pay about 12-16% of my gross income for the health of my family. Oh, and this is with the hospitals (and other things) highly subsidized with tax money. Health costs are problematic for the middle class.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s lucky of you. Many do take it into account.

      What’s nuts is that the majority of people declaring bankruptcy because of medical debt have insurance.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The credit agencies do this, too. Medical debt is either not counted against your credit score or is weighted so little it won’t affect much.

      It makes perfect sense, because it’s not an accurate depiction of your credit seeking habits. It is debt that you did not choose to take on.

  • Jaderick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It always has. IIRC the biggest reason for bankruptcy in the US has been medical bills, for a while. Our greed driven system is garbage.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        11 months ago

        They eliminated pre-existing conditions and maximum lifetime payments for health insurance, so that’s not nothing.

        But they failed to pass a public option which means health insurance companies have a captive audience for their rent-seeking.

        And the Democrats still just talk about getting people affordable “coverage” and not affordable “care.”

        And hospitals are still understaffed and mental health care has six month waiting lists.

        • tmyakal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          Where I live, all care has a six month wait list. I started a new job with new insurance back in April, still haven’t been able to get in anywhere to see a new PCP. My dentist canceled an appointment on me last week and rescheduled it for February.

          People say socialized medicine leads to long wait times to see doctors. Well, I’m not seeing them now anyway, so at least it’s less or of my pocket.

        • shikitohno@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          Mental health care is also often just excluded from coverage. My current job is the first time in my life I’ve had insurance that would cover therapy rather than be like “Look, we gave you one 60 minute session with our free crisis line, what more do you want? If you really need it, it’s only $450 a session if it’s that important.”

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          And the Democrats still just talk about getting people affordable “coverage” and not affordable “care.”

          The charitable interpretation is that they’re talking about getting the government to pay for healthcare and they don’t want to make it sound like medical professionals would all become government employees.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Because that would be a lot less popular. A lot of Americans are terrified of the scenario because they’re afraid of change in general, and they’re afraid the result would be run even worse than the system we have now, because they think governments are inherently less competent than private companies.

              I’m not talking about brainwashed Republicans; I mean centrist Dems whose support is absolutely vital for a Dem politician in almost any congressional district.

              • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                You mean blue Republicans who get paid to perpetuate this bullshit. They aren’t Democrats; they’re fascist spies.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because nobody has responded appropriately: with violence. It is the only reasonable response.

    • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      And yet nobody does anything about it.

      Violence is the only reasonable response.

  • FlavoredButtHair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 months ago

    It amazes me how people went to work sick as if it was normal. Of courses some bosses were assholes and “wouldn’t let you go home” or “needed you at work”. Sure boss let me sneeze in my hand before I shake everybody else’s hand.

    Now these days woah big scary covid. If you’re not feeling good please stay home. We should’ve been staying home like 30 yrs ago,

    • Patches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Went

      They still are.

      I have a 103 fever and here I am. At work.

      I’m not sure what places you are working that kept the COVID era scare.

      Medicine is so polarized I can’t even tell my coworkers I tested positive for COVID. One of them will go on a violent rant for hours. '“Yep, I’m definitely a crisis actor. They don’t pay much these days. This is my second job”

      • FlavoredButtHair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean if you feel sick and wanna stay home, it happens. I just wish managers were less assholes and were more considerate.

        • Goferking0@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          The problem is so many jobs either make you take vacation days or not get paid at all if you have to miss work due to any illness

    • Gargantu8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Literally all my coworkers still come to work sick despite having sick leave. Gets everyone else sick.

    • Zink
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I wonder if it’s a case of empathy being forced on some people, like when a Republican is suddenly LGBT tolerant because one of their own kids came out. But in this case it’s the feeling of worrying about their health or that of a loved one.

      Whatever the cause, it’s still a positive change. I’m sure many of us who already saw the sense in staying home will now err on the side of caution a little more often.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well part of it 8s not going to hurt your credit score anymore:

      https://www.cnbc.com/select/medical-debt-credit-report/

      Any bills under $500 in collections won’t be going against your score. Debts larger than that in collections have to be there for at least a year to be on your credit score and disappear once they are paid.

      We could fix all this shit by having the cheaper Medicare for All solution.

      • FReddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        11 months ago

        Aetna pulled out of my county for five months. I ended up in a ICU for three days, which is about a $50,000 bill.

        So now I’m on the hook for an $8,000 out of network deductible.

        Fuck U.S. health insurance.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          My wife had to go to the ER a few years ago. The hospital we thought we were going to was in network. Unfortunately the ER is a separate entity that was not in network. That was a nice $1000 bill.

          • Ignisnex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            So I’m trying to follow the misery in this thread, but I don’t know what “in network” means. Is there some sort of intranet that hospitals and insurance companies use to bill each other? I don’t get it.

            • SeaJ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Kind of. Insurance companies make deals with healthcare providers to give better rates on procedures than the book price. The book price is the price that the care provider “officially” charges. Usually it is some bullshit number they pull straight out of their ass. If you do not have insurance, they will charge you that made up book price. But you can call them up and negotiate with them because they want some payment and they realize most people cannot pull $50k out of their rectum.

              So back to insurance…they negotiate with certain care providers in the region they operate. Those are in network and get better rates. Ones outside of that network get worse rates and insurance generally does not cover most of the cost…unless you have hit your out of pocket maximum for the year. The out of pocket maximum is when you have spent so much out of pocket on things like co-pays and out of network costs that insurance will now start covering 100% of the medical bills.

              Not confusing or fucked up at all, right? It gets more complicated because there are also deductibles. That one is similar to out of pocket maximum but insurance does not pay 100%, generally closer to 80%. Your deductible goes toward the out of pocket maximum.

              Before Obama, insurance companies also had maximum lifetime benefits. Basically if you were costing them too much for shit like a heart transplant, they’d tell you to fuck off after they already paid out $500k or whatever number they chose.

              They could also deny coverage for a pre-existing condition. Generally you would be fine for that one if you had continual coverage but not necessarily. So if that heart transplant person wanted to switch insurance because he had a new job, they could see that he had a transplant previously and decide to not cover them. That one is a bit personal to me because my wife and her mother had a similar issue. My wife had a liver transplant when she was young. My mother-in-law did not ever try to switch jobs because she was afraid that a new insurance would not cover my wife. Dialing in the proper dosage for a growing kid so their liver does not get rejected takes a lot of doctor visits and would have been very costly.

              • Ignisnex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                That is nuts. And so complicated! Healthcare here is far from perfect (and getting worse all the time!) but at least it’s not that. How hard of a concept is it that if you’re unwell, you just go to any hospital and get treatment? Good to know that I’d just straight up die in the states though.

                • SeaJ@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Larger companies have teams dedicated to negotiating with the insurance companies and answering insurance questions for employees. All that additional complexity means about 19% of the US GDP goes towards healthcare costs compared with most developed countries spending 10-12%. Even libertarian groups have shown that socialized insurance through extending Medicare to everyone would be cheaper than what we currently do and it would cover everyone (including dental) and there would be no out of network garbage. Several Democratic presidential candidates initially pushed for that at the start of their campaign only to back down from it later on in the race leaving only Sanders pushing for it.

                  As for straight up dying? Thousands each year die because of lack of insurance. I’m guessing several thousand more die even with insurance because they can’t afford the out of pocket maximum or their insurance declines covering a necessary procedure. I recall one woman who was attacked by a bear and her first thought while being attacked was how she would afford the medical bill if she made it through. And she was right to be worried. Her insurance denied most of her coverage and only paid 20% of her $300k worth of bills.

      • Limit@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        $500 is nothing. My son fell and hit his head and had a small seizure from the fall… took him to the ER, ct scan, medical exam, anti nausea medication, costed $750 out if pocket AFTER insurance. It was like a $3k medical bill before insurance. For like 2 hours at the ER and a scan… it’s ridiculous.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yet COVID vaccinations are down…

    And “essential workers” are right back to being expected to work while sick…

    This is fine.

    • Froyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nothing changed for “essential workers”. The only reprieve they received was guaranteed time off if they contracted Covid. We still had sick people working, they were the wrong kind of sick.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I was at a work training in the US with someone from Japan. She said she had only been to the US one other time but that she had gotten sick and spent 2 weeks in the hospital.

    I don’t know what Japan’s healthcare system is like, but I can’t imagine being someone from another country and unfamiliar with our shitty system and getting that huge ass bill.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Most probably it was still covered by here Japanese insurance. A friend of mine broke an arm while in US and some insurance he bought in Poland paid for everything. You don’t have to be familiar with American system. It’s just like any other insurance.

  • CompostMaterial@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    I view medicine in the US similar to video piracy. If you are going to make access expensive and difficult to obtain, then I have no issue with stealing it. Medical debt is handled differently than other types of debt. IANAL, but I have no qualms with running up a 700k medical debt for life saving treatment then bouncing on the bill.

  • 0000011110110111i@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    We are so baffled in Europe about how a country that preaches human rights around the world revels in denying its own people one of the most fundamental human rights. Truly mind boggling.

  • brothershamus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

    President Nixon: [Unclear.]

    Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

    President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_taped_conversation_between_President_Richard_Nixon_and_John_D._Ehrlichman_%281971%29_that_led_to_the_HMO_act_of_1973: