Slashdot Mirror
Larry Page: You Worry Too Much About Medical Privacy
jfruh writes "Larry Page revealed that he'd been suffering from a vocal cord ailment that impaired his ability to speak for more than a year. The positive feedback he got from opening up about it inspired him to tell attendees at Google I/O that we should all be less uptight about keeping our medical records private. As far as Page is concerned, pretty much the only legitimate reason for worry on this score is fear of being denied health insurance. 'Maybe we should change the rules around insurance so that they have to insure people,' he said."
... for some fishy reason if it gets out he has some "scary disease" or won't work as efficient anymore. Or might drop out at any time for a week.
And it is also not that his penis had a malfunction or something.
I think Larry Page generalises too much, has too much of an agenda, hasn't gotten that not everyone follows the same religion, needs to shut up and retire so he can spend his money on philantropy. I like Bill Gates much more since he stopped babbling his technology-and-business-bullshit and actually put the billions fate threw at him for something useful.
Larry Page isn't getting a third of what he thinks he got.
In the financial trading industry we have a term for those pundits who come on Bloomberg or CNBC and give advice on markets, stocks etc - they are talking their own book. So If they are extolling the virtues of a stock or a currency it usually means they are holding a large position in it themselves. Here we see Ole Larry talking his own book. These assholes would have you bare your entire life for them so they may sell you more shit you don't need. Fuck you Larry Page and Fuck you Google.
The only reason to worry is to be insured? How about not being discriminated against in all kinds of areas (namely job hunting)? How about not pissing off a girlfriend when you have to clear up a STD from an Ex or a bad decision? How about not wanting the family to know you have a terminal disease?
There are many reasons we want to keep our health issues private. I'm not going to discount that being able to talk to someone is helpful, but that is not even close to making them available to everyone all the time.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
just think rationally for a moment
if you insure everyone, why dont you just make sure everyone get health care.
big companies can make financial decisions about risk mitigation.
for the rest of us, the insurance companies are just parasites. they rig the game.
we need to stop discussing health, our health, in those terms
Sounds like someone who wasn't around for the beginning of the AIDS epidemic (or even the current state of the AIDS epidemic).
There are some health issues that society isn't mature enough to handle. Most of them are sexual in nature - do you really want your STD diagnosis to be water-cooler conversation (Hey, Frank, who'd you pick up that case of the clap from?)? If I had a diagnosis that gave me a 25% chance of dying in the next year, I believe that I have the right to decide who knows that. How about as a potential CEO, having your anxiety disorder (handled nicely with drugs, thank you) bandied about the boardroom?
There are other health issues that are a don't-care. Paralyzed vocal cords? Bummer, dude. Here, I'll tell you one about me - I have vitiligo. Bummer, dude. Exzema? Ingrown toenail? Bummer, dude. Hell, even erectile dysfunction is a prime-time advertising bonanza.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Indeed "The only reason to worry about medical privacy is the GIANT FUCKING ELEPANT IN THE ROOM that can potentially TOTALLY SCREW OVER the vast majority of people in the country" And the rich wonder why people think they're out of touch.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I must sincerely disagree with Larry Page on the subject of privacy of medical records. There are many medical conditions, that can be compromising or embarrassing for a patient. If someone has a congenital condition that affect their behavioral or physical condition, that is something they might want to manage privately for their own protection. Reproductive issues are very private issues, for obvious reasons. If someone has a undiagnosed condition that affects their ability to work or to engage in a social life, they deserve privacy while they work with a health provider to figure things out. I find Mr. Page's feelings very inconsiderate to other people. I respect Mr. Page's courage in dealing with his current vocal cord paralysis, which has been ongoing for sometime, and he has taken a very blunt way of dealing with it. Not everyone's condition affords them such candor.
Insurance is about risk management. Forcing a risk manager to ignore risk is about as dumb a suggestion as I've ever heard.
The problem lies elsewhere; the problem lies in the lack of a free market; the problem lies in crony capitalism: Big Business and Big Government using each other to fleece people through coercion.
"'Maybe we should change the rules around insurance so that they have to insure people,' he said."
Maybe the world *should* be a better place. But wishing for the best of all possible worlds is an idiotic basis for national health policy. Or privacy policy.
So Larry Page disclosed an ailment that quite frankly was new to me. But what are the implications of paralized vocal chords beyond being unable to speak?
Are the people surrounding him worried he may be contagoious? Is he in danger of being blamed for an unhealthy lifestyle causing his malaise? Does he face the prospect of losing his job, or being unable to find employment in the future? Is he likely to lose family or friends? I believe the answer is no to all the above questions.
But think of AIDS, certain cancers, heart disease, mental disorders and any number of afflictions that MAY be caused by personal choice. Or even if personal responsibility were not the cause, yet others would still discriminate the sufferer.
The choice of making one's problems public should ALWAYS rest with the individual. There are always reasons to shield yourself from others, and one billionaire cannot even begin to comprehend the complexity of the issue from his ivory tower.
Because figures in a ledger book are more important than people's lives.
'Maybe we should change the rules around insurance so that they have to insure people,' Larry Page said."
Yes, we can have the rules changed, but then, they too can change the rules
If we are too force the insurance to accept all people, they can make their insurance policy so expensive that only the rich can afford
After all, who is in business to make a lost ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Maybe we should change the rules around insurance so that they have to insure people
That would be an improvement, but at the same time it creates another problem. Having an industry where only the buyer is allowed to use information is complete nonsense too. I know this opinion isn't popular around here, but for health insurance, the only thing that makes any sort of sense is a public system. It's just sad to see that the US is among the last to realize this.
Actually, in most of the world, it isn't called "medical insurance", it is called the "medical system", and it is a system where everyone pays for equal access to medical services. The idea that it is "insurance", where individuals have various levels of "risk" seems to be part of the problem. Society does not have "educational insurance" to pay for our educational needs, why would we want medical insurance?
His comment makes a lot of sense. In Australia, health insurance companies must charge every customer the same amount (for the same level of cover) and are required to provide coverage to anyone who signs up. It is illegal to deny a person insurance. Japan goes one step further and *requires* everyone to be insured. Everyone has the the same level of cover and no one is denied. Both of these countries have excellent medical outcomes and profitable medical insurance industries.
America, you are doing health insurance wrong. There are many examples of health insurance worldwide that are more equitable, more effective and far cheaper.
No kidding. I'd love to see how little medical privacy meant to him if he had a mental illness and was looking for a job and housing. Medical privacy laws don't exist because we're all bashful. They exist because people have been persecuted and discriminated against for medical and mental health issues.
I don't want to come off as some tin-foil hat wearing nut-job, but one can't help making a connection between Google wanting to know as much information as possible about a person to influence search results and Page's comments.
I just think there's no good reason to open up if people don't want to. There are a lot of things that could be stigmatizing in a person's medical history and open them all to all kinds of forms of discrimination outside of being able to get health insurance. Things as simple as "Oh, you had an abortion once. You're not welcome here."
And for what it's worth, I'd like to see better privacy laws in place. The kind of data that companies are so easily able to gather these days is getting out of hand is probably going to lead to an entirely new set of problems in the future. For example, it's already been proven possible to out a gay person by analyzing their friends on social networks. If the world were a better place that wouldn't be a big deal, but it isn't. I'm reminded a short story where information gathering becomes so sophisticated that computers are able to generate targeted ads to influence a person in a single regard:
“Push combs the online footprint of our targets to determine everything we can about them,” said Yaroslava. “We use social networks, we use search histories, we use cell phone data, we use gaming protocols. All data is useful to us. Not only do we find out exactly what our target likes to consume, but we also find out how they like to consume it. We see how they browse to determine their specific attention spans and intelligence. We scan their pornography habits to learn about their libido, their obsessions, and their fears. We aggregate vast amounts of data about the way they use the internet to create a complete psychological profile of our targets, and then we use cognitive behavioral techniques to triangulate patterns in this profile. We make as robust a model of their operating intelligence as we possibly can. And then we make little movies meant only for our specific subjects. We make movies designed to steer them toward our products, whatever these products may be. These movies are designed to make each subject breathless, pliant, confused, over-stimulated, and highly amenable to suggestion.”
Starting in 2014 in the US, this will be the law of the land--companies will have to insure anyone, regardless of existing conditions. It is also the law in MA right now.
Not just mental illness - which is already overly stigmatised. But what if you had early symptoms or markers for degenerative diseases such as early onset Alzheimer's or something similar.
I was recently diagnosed with cancer that was triggered by an auto immune disease. I've had surgery and my prognosis is extremely good, but there's lots of cancers out there with a high probability of reoccurring.
My sister has a related auto immune disease but got juvenile arthritis instead. MY husband suffers from extreme chronic obstructive sleep apnea which was initially mis-diagnosed as a mental illness and then epilepsy as his symptoms escalated while we searched for a correct treatment.
I'm not sure the first thing I would say to a prospective employer is that I've had cancer, anymore than they should be able to ask whether we intend to have kids.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
You should sign in before you post, Larry.
and, as he points, out, the insurance will not be affordable and additionally many of the plans will actually end up being inferior to what many had before.
MA is not doing anyone favoures.
Unless a company buys you health insurance you can only enroll in July. In the mean time they will penalize your already high state taxes for every month you do not have insurance. Keep in mind it's not a 'fine,' thatd be unconstitutional!
The logic behind this is people with no insurance avoid going to the dr, their ailments turn into bad conditions that they must get treated, then skip out on the bill. This money supposedly compensates for this.
Health insurance is, how ever, prohibitely expensive so they push high deductible plans for 300/month. High deductible plans... You mean the sort of insurance that causes people to avoid the dr?
This billionaire advertising executive is so totally disconnected from the issues facing real people in the real world that it boggles the mind.
"Why would anyone want privacy for their medical records? I don't get it. If that causes insurance problem then we should just change the insurance system. Why is this so hard for you people to understand?"
See, this is one of the reasons why we in Europe have public health care: your fate and health depends less on people that actually have an interest in not helping you when need it; ie, insurance companies.
I don't know about Larry Page - to me he is just another suit that got lucky. I have worked in software engineering for over 20 years, and I have never worked out why people like him are admired; they are always shallow, sometimes embarrasingly ignorant about things and a bit deficient, morally and otherwise. Which is why the got rich, really.
Well, he's not afraid his company might fire him..
He is also in the data business. If the government started enforcing privacy regulations his company might end up liable. There is also a big potential profit in getting ever more specific information about you that can be used or sold. Getting medical data to mine is a huge win on many levels.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Good luck proving that.
I didn't hire him because I had a feeling that he wouldn't perform well in our company.
You don't think that an HR person would actually say "I didn't hire him because XYZ was protected".
Also, in response to this:
It is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on medical conditions
...
That depends greatly on the medical condition. Assume I'm colorblind. Want to bet that a media publishing firm could turn me down for a design job and break no laws? There are still pushes to keep colorblind people from becoming medical doctors because the belief is that they might miss a rash or color based symptom (jaundice?)
To say that it is illegal to discriminate based on medical conditions isn't exactly true.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The days of "the poor rising up against the rich" in a first world country are long over, because the rich now have the large middle class military and police forces to beat the poor back into submission whenever they get out of hand.
Medical privacy only helps those who want to con the system or hurt others. Unemployment is high enough as it is. It would be far lower if we cut free the freeloaders.
The freeloaders who just want to get treatment but get charged 5x what the insurance companies end up paying because they don't have the power to negotiate? The freeloaders who have paid thousands into private health insurance without taking any benefits and then lose their job, can't pay, and get NONE of that money back when they need it? Or the freeloaders who are completely avoiding doctor visits to avoid getting any preventative care or diagnoses they need in order to keep pre-existing conditions from appearing on their health records (and end up costing the insurance companies and/or the government 100x what it would have if they had dealt with their issues earlier)?
The fact is, healthcare costs would be far lower if we had a single payer system. Cover EVERYONE at a federal level, then none of your concerns about private corporate interest are relevant.
I find it very interesting that someone as intelligent as Larry Page could provide a statement so utterly disconnected from the reality of most people lives.
This is one more indication that in many cases, being separated from contact with ordinary people by richness of function actually affects your capacity to think "normally" or empathize.
This is one more element to show that letting these (otherwise perfectly respectable) people having too much influence on politics and government is extremely bad.
You know, just the other day I was at the water cooler with my Google Glasses on. Janet's description showed that she was three months pregnant. She's unmarried and spends a lot of time with Bob.
Bob's description suggests he was tested for an STD just a couple months ago. I wonder if he told Janet.
Oops. Just got a popup that I can pay google $10 a month to keep my medical records from showing up on google glasses. What a steal!
How is this "news"?
There are a ton of reasons for which people care about medical privacy. Here's one: If you're trans, and you're on hormones, then being "outed" can get you killed. Although, frankly, nothing Google's done has ever given me the impression that they care; the way G+ has handled "real" names suggests to me that, as a corporation, Google would be happiest if all those people just stopped existing and being complications. (Note: I know a bunch of people at Google who don't feel that way; Google the corporation has behaviors that, so far as I can tell, Google employees generally dislike, but the dysfunctional way they run the company makes things happen anyway.)
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
While I agree in some respect he got lucky, I'm also pretty sure he knows a LOT more about the technology behind what his company does than you or I. He and Sergei Brin weren't "suits" who sold ads, they were Computer Science PhD students at Stanford who invented many of the early concepts behind Google's core search engine.
Sorry, but the broad generalizations and assumptions you just made about non-Europeans, successful businesspeople, and Larry Page in particular in your post are much more shallow, ignorant, and honestly just plain arrogant than anything Page said...
I don't mean to be offensive, I come from this background too, but the military are not middle class on average. The military is drawn from the ranks of the poor. That's why a lot of them join, no other options. The officers might be middle class, but even then there have been times when that didn't matter. They side with their soldiers or die along with the elites.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Not offensive at all, it's an interesting perspective - but the fact is in a first world country as long as you are in the military you are housed, well fed, and you and your family get health care.
I know this is a recruiting site, but the Army claims the average total compensation package for a service member is about $99,000. That's solidly in the middle class.
http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total-compensation.html
Proper medical care should not be subject to an insurance which the insurance companies could refuse to give you due to prior illness. What if someone grows up in a poor family without medical insurance and is diagnosed with a heart defect at a young age which may or may not manifest itself at an older age. If it does happen, they're practically screwed, even if the defect could be treated with proper medical care. The insurance companies could easily say that this is a prior condition that was diagnosed before the insurance was taken out.
We can argue about socialised medicine, which works pretty well in Europe, warts and all, but it baffles me that such a large portion of Americans are highly enthusiastic about a system where a large for-profit corporation with a huge profit motive can decide to screw you over, due to technicalities in your insurance contract, or because you got a test done when you where 13.
The rest of Larry Page's arguments seem nonsense to me. We, as a society, should be less judgemental and prickly or private about a lot of illnesses, but as an individual, you have to live in a society where people will judge you for your medical history. We are not ready for full disclosure and probably never will be.
Nationalized healthcare solves this problem. For-profit corporations have no business in health insurance.
So the question is do you trust Google?
Not even a little. Google is all about profits; profits do not generally go very well with trust, unless you are an investor.
I can see the benefit of having control over my own medical records via a service provider. I can make corrections and don't have to rely on my useless GP to get them to specialists when I need to see them.
Making corrections to medical records should only be allowed if you're a medical professional. What makes you think you know jack shit about medicine, that you have the knowledge to make such corrections? If your GP is useless, find a new one.
... whatever
Nationalized healthcare solves this problem. For-profit corporations have no business in health insurance.
You're welcome to come to Canada or take a trip to the UK anytime you want to see the "benefits" of not-for-profit healthcare. Let me know when you feel like waiting a month or so for a MRI or longer, unless it's serious. Then it might only be 3-4 days, of and of course the UK actually *does* have death panels. Though technically they're not supposed to suggest people simply die off unless they're exceptionally infirm. They also did it to infants.
Om, nomnomnom...
No, it means that the organizations that get funding to vaccinate children or providing running water, can only spend the money on Microsoft software, and cannot use the funds for other operating systems.
So in the U.S. it takes vastly more resources than everywhere else?
Isn't the free market supposed to boost efficiency?
Anonymous Coward wrote: ...] ...
> [ jfruh wrote:
> > "Larry Page revealed that he'd been suffering from a vocal cord
> > ailment that impaired his ability to speak for more than a year.
> >
>
> Easy for him to say
Wait, wha?
So in the U.S. it takes vastly more resources than everywhere else?
Isn't the free market supposed to boost efficiency?
The US has not had anything even close to a "free market" for decades. Particularly regarding anything related to healthcare and pharmaceuticals.
The good news, however, is that there should be no worries about medical records being leaked and/or used against individuals or organizations since the IRS will keep those safe for all of us. They're so eager to begin, they simply walked in and seized without explanation approximately *sixty million* medical records in California that are reported to contain every California State Judge as well as many top Hollywood/media/news execs.
Even better, the IRS official that was in charge of the office targeting individuals and groups for IRS harassment that politically/ideologically oppose this administration has just been put in charge of the IRS's Obamacare office. Better hope your health remains good if you speak out against the government.
Maybe we can get the DoJ to seize the IRS's phone records to find out why, since the DoJ seems to be seizing phone records from everyone else these days, including the AP and phone records from the House of Representatives press gallery which journalists often use to call Congresspeople in their offices.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
What you're referring to is the Liverpool Care Pathway. Which is a mechanism for palliative care, which the patient can only be put onto voluntarily or in the event they are incapable (coma etc) their legal representative (spouse etc) can make the decision for them. Additionally the news article you link to, quotes a news article which was withdrawn as it was found to be grossly misleading/fabricated...
It can by definition vastly reduce the economic burden. For example in the USA more money is spent pushing paper around to pay for health care bills than the NHS in England spends in it's entirety (or was the case in 1996). Now yes the USA is larger than England, but if you are not madly pushing pieces of paper around and spending time accounting for everything you can save a shed load of administrative costs. These costs can then be spent treating actual patients for actual illnesses.
Disclaimer: I live in Canada.
It's true what you said. However, you can have a MRI in a private clinic in the same day. It costs around 650$ CAD for a full scan on some area of body. More: it's usually covered by your employer's health insurance if scan isn't asked by your doctor OR, if you have a doctor's prescription, it will be covered by public funds.
Yes, in Canada.
“Computer science has a marketing problem." That's what Larry said. And his presentation was about marketing more than anything. He was trying to sell the world view that works great for his company, and he certainly put his sour grapes on the table.
He talks of "resistance to technological change", which is code for Google Glasses and the glasshole syndrome. He talks of how people should should be more relaxed with their medical records, which is code for Google Health. They had a clear plan how they were going to make money with Google Health (selling user data). The problem was that, on the user side, they had a solution that was in search of an actual need. But Google has made it clear that they're not going to learn that lesson.
You know, I kind of like his idea of a mirror universe where more avant-garde ideas can be tested out, in small scale, in the real-world. He wanted a Burning Man type of environment for new technology. Actually, Eureka (the town from the TV show of the same name) might have been a closer fit (although the reference would have been lesser-known, and is almost synonymous with disaster). Being able to try things out (on the small scale and a limited geography) and work out the problems there is great for allowing a company to iterate on a product without the marketing backlash for failures.
In theory, I'd love to live in that Eureka town. But only if it was about the product and about the science. The only thing Google Health did for me was to convince me that Google's products and services aren't about what they deliver (search, ubiquitous health records). They are about Google's real customers (advertisers, health care industry) and Google's real problem is finding a way to get everyone to jump on board so they can make money. That's what he is saying, in code, when he says "computer science has a marketing problem".
the insurance will not be affordable and additionally many of the plans will actually end up being inferior to what many had before.
So says the 'chicken little' AC. Next year we'll find out if everything the GOP has been claiming for the last 5 years is really true. I believe that they will be proven wrong while millions of Americans who had pre-existing conditions will be able to find coverage at normal cost and many thousands will not lose coverage in the middle of an illness. While many millions more American will find better coverage, many at significant savings than they would have paid previously.
Meanwhile, the medicare cuts made by the ACA (aka Obamacare) which the GOP claimed would kill, have contributed to a 5% savings in Medicare costs which has reduced the budget deficit even more than expected. Every year the Republicans have been claiming that we are at the doorstep of disaster, and seemingly despite their best efforts, it has not happened. The question is when the stop being pessimistic and start claiming 'victory', how do they claim Obamacare was their idea?
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
The Daily Mail is also not an objective source, in fact it's infamous for making shit up in support of a rightist agenda. But that said, yes, from time to time the NHS is found to be deficient in some areas, there's a massive political scandal and the issues are fixed. In the mean time, 100% of the population are covered by a health system whose faults generally lie in long waiting times for non-urgent medical care and not a lot else.
I do suggest however that you ask Brits and Canadians the same question. Would they rather replace their healthcare system with the US version?
You also should also Medicare patients whether they'd rather stay on their terrible evil socialist system or be required to switch to private insurance.
The answers might surprise you.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yes, doctors make mistakes. That does not make everybody else qualified to make corrections to medical records. That there are examples of doctors making mistakes to the detriment of their patients just means there needs to be revisions in place.
The example you give could have been completely avoided if the woman could have had a second unbiased opinion. But it's a tall order to ask a doctor to diagnose a condition if denied the medical history of the patient. There will always be some who fall between the cracks, and the system needs to pick up on this rather than bouncing them around. Still, all this does not qualify anyone else to make corrections to medical records.
... whatever
Let me know when you feel like waiting a month or so for a MRI or longer, unless it's serious.
If it's not serious, what's the rush? Why do you need it immediately?
The US has the same problem Canada does, namely that more people want MRIs immediately than can get them. The Canadian's solution is to make those who don't need them right now hold off for a while until the resources our free. The US's solution is to tell approximately 15% of its citizens that they can't pay the exorbitant price for it, so screw 'em, they can drop dead for all we care. Since you're almost definitely not part of that 15%, you don't see that cost, only the benefits of faster service for you.
Alternately, you can look at any statistics from any international body that monitors health statistics, which will universally say that the British and Canadian population is healthier than the American population.
I am officially gone from
So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system
It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What matters is companies use it as an excuse to fuck over their employees. My wife and a few of my friends have all seen their coverage decline over the last year to "get ready for expected increases in insurance costs". Companies see this as an excuse to fuck over their employees and employees blame it on obama.
... the broad generalizations and assumptions you just made ...
I was talking about my experience - rather than making sweeping generalisations. Here's an example: Not long ago I wrote a long report about some technical matters, 100 something pages. I used OpenOffice, and I always turn off spell check etc, because most of the words are not in the dictionary anyway. I handed it to a manager, who felt that he needed to put me down for whatever reason - so he ran a spell check and found 1 genuine spelling mistake. Just 1 - but this was apparently a major issue, and one of the brilliantly enlightening comment he made were "Surely you learned how to use a spell-checker when you wrote your thesis at uni?" - Except that when I did that, the IBM PC had only just come to market, and everybody wrote their theses by hand, using ink and paper. He would have realised if he had bothered with thinking, I'm sure.
I can of course shrug that sort of nonsense off, but it has done little to build confidence in the abilities of managers. I mean, one incident means he had a bad day, but this level of idiocy on an almost daily basis, what does that mean? It isn't just ignorance about technical matters - ignorance I can understand and tolerate, it's the scale of it combined with the bloated and mostly misplaced self-assurance, the "I'm richer than you, so I am evidently better and more intelligent".
So you can just wait until one day you're diagnosed with cancer, then go and get yourself insurance so the insurance company can pay for your treatment? I don't think insurance works that way.
Insurance is all about probabilities, they take money from a lot of people who have a low (normal) probability of getting sick and use that money to pay the few of them who do get sick. If clients are more likely to get sick, they'll have to pay a higher premium or the maths simply don't add up. And if you already know someone is sick and is going to need treatment, how can you give this person "insurance"? "O, you're going to need a couple of million dollars for your treatment? Sure, join up and pay a monthly fee of a few hundred dollars and we'll pay for your treatment." That just doesn't make sense.
Obviously I do know that insurance companies are making way too much money and could certainly do with a bit less, but you have to remain reasonable.
We don't have to answer that question, because it's not actually against the law for private healthcare companies to run here, we have lots. How many people do you think pay for them when there's a very highly regarded (beyond the bizarro world of the Daily Mail) heathcare service free at the point of use? Most Brits love the heathcare service. Of course it's not perfect, but compared to the leech of a system that's present on your side of a pond, we'd take it any day.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Although it's possible some providers may try offering inferior plans, the fact that it is still a free market (contrary to the 'socialist' cries from the the fringe elements), any provider offering substandard plans would quickly find themselves left in the dust or heavily penalized if they tried to gouge customers. The affordable health care act requires that all applicants of the same general age and geographical location be offered the same premium costs, meaning any spikes due to pre-existing conditions will be averaged across a large number of individuals, which also includes a large number of health individuals which will balance out those spikes. Providers will also have to reinvest a set amount of profits into consumer benefits rather than profits, meaning the increased customer base doesn't necessarily mean they will get rich. There are indeed some good protections in the act that are consumer friendly.
Those who try to gouge customers will also be barred from getting into the healthcare exchanges and the customers that those exchange will provide. Such companies will also be monitored by the HHS, DOJ and FTC, who will in turn report such gouging to the local states to see if the price hikes were 'justified', and can have penalties levied against them if they are found to be gouging. The information will also be published to the public. Such information would create a very black eye for any reputable company. Pharma and medical equipment manufacturer's are also covered under that provision.
In short, gouging from the insurance industry is not very likely, and can be promptly addressed at the federal and state level if needed.
Those who fall into poverty ranges (up to 138% of the poverty level) will receive assistance in paying for premiums, although they will have to contribute within their means. It's a fair system IMO.
The act also makes it easier for smaller businesses (50 employees) to offer health care coverage via the same exchanges as well as help wit subsidies from the government to help reduce their premium costs), where previously they had no such option (all or nothing type of situation).
As to Larry, his statement speaks volumes about the disconnect of the rich from the poor. Prior to health care reform, admitting you had a pre-existing condition virtually guaranteed you would never find coverage, or that such coverage would be excluded with a rider to your policy, making coverage largely pointless for those with a condition requiring regular treatment.
The cost of medical services is not merely out of control. It's beyond comprehension.
Let's look at this from a consumer standpoint. Let's imagine you're a rich person and do not need insurance and will pay for everything in cash. You bought your last car with pocket change. In every case (with a minor exception of the mobile phone bill) you know exactly what you will be paying and why. It seems only the medical industry never tells you exactly how much everything costs along the way.
No one [normal] would go to a restaurant and order off the menu without knowing what the prices were, so imagine being unable to know what you will spend the next time you go to McDonald's... or the grocery store... or anywhere.
There is no negotiation and no fore knowledge of what the bill will cost. It's insanity. And the industry says "it's okay... don't worry about it... let the insurance company worry about that, you just pay the co-pay." Meanwhile, the insurance industry loves this because they get more and more customers. These two sytems are designed to abuse the ignorance of the consumer and to keep them blind. When you think about how unacceptable this would be anywhere else, you have to wonder how this insane system came to be as it is.
The US has not had anything even close to a "free market" for decades. Particularly regarding anything related to healthcare and pharmaceuticals
You by defintion cannot have a "free market" in health care, because demand is completely inelastic. If I need dialysis to live, I'll agree to pay whatever you feel like charging me. The customer is not, and in most cases cannot be a free player.
Trying to have a "market" in health care is as silly as it would be for Police or Firefighting services.
Where the USA gets in trouble is that it refuses to acknowlege this fact, and tries to inject "free market" constructs into its system whereever possible. Sure enough, the inevitable happens, and the USA has ended up with most expensive health care system in the world (while getting mediocre results).
I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers ...
I shouldn't have to pay to educate people who are determined to stay ignorant, but I do. The lifetime medical costs for smokers are lower than for non-smokers. Die at 67 of some smoking related ailment and Medicare won't have to pay for anymore medical care for you. Don't smoke, live to 87 and that's another 20 years of medical expenses. Even if you argue that the pre-retirement medical costs are higher for smokers, it's unreasonable to ask smokers to pay higher premiums unless you also reduce their Medicare taxes.
It's people like me that are going to cost you. Almost everyone in my family (both sides) lives at least into their 80's. I'm probably going to cost you a bundle. No apologies.
Furthermore, if your real concern is saving money rather than having some variety of "those people" to sanctimoniously complain about, what's really screwing you is living in the US. No other country in the world pays more than 2/3 of what we do (as %/GDP - at exchange rate or PPP the disparity is much greater), yet many such countries have medical care at least as good as ours and universal coverage.
I did an enlistment in the USAF between 2008 and 2012, and while I don't believe the $99,000 value is correct, it was certainly a middle class level of compensation that I received. Just looking at base pay, most enlisted members poor, but then you have to account for monthly non-taxed BAH (monthly money for rent), BAS (monthly money for food/hygienics), no healthcare premiums or deductibles for yourself, and very small premiums and deductibles for your family, cheap food at the commissary on base, non-taxed general goods at the PX/BX/NEX, free education (plus a significant amount of college credits for your training - I think I got 20-something), no life insurance costs, and yearly uniform allowances. I'm sure I'm missing some benefits, too. Overall, aside from deployments, it's a pretty comfortable lifestyle. And the idea that military is almost exclusively drawn from the ranks of the poor is misleading. That's more true for services like the Army and the Marines. The Air Force provides extremely lucrative job training and experience, and tends to attract a lot of middle-class kids who don't want to go the college route (many of which have some college experience prior to enlisting).
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
By and large most of the objections to government-provided healthcare on this side of the Atlantic (and this side of the Canadian border ;-) really come down to prejudice against government provided services in general, coupled with well funded anti-government propaganda from the Healthcare industry, right wing think tanks and lobby groups, inflating stories of failure in foreign single-payer systems while ignoring the severe problems with the current system.
The funny thing is that the US government does provide general healthcare services to certain groups, such as the elderly and the military, which are well run and immensely popular with those who eligable to receive treatment.
Unfortunately, the entire issue is so toxic that even with a Democratic majority on both houses, the last Health Care Reform push was little more than a tinkering with the current system, providing some subsidies to people who couldn't otherwise afford private insurance, while striking a deal with insurers that the industry would cover pre-existing conditions in exchange for everyone being pressured to get insurance. Not only was single payer not brought to the floor, but in the congressional hearings to discuss the nature of HCR that lead to Obamacare, single payer was banned from discussion.
We're governed by terrible, terrible, people.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yes, but another aspect of the law is that insurance companies(as of late 2012) have to submit explanations to the feds for every increase in premiums. And(in 2013) they cannot make more than 20% profit. And their overhead has to come out of that same 20%. 80 cents out of every dollar you pay for insurance has to go to actual medical providers or medicine.
What that does incentivize is really high premiums, and insurers choosing expensive procedures in order to maximize how big that 20%. What the whole package is predicated on is that the buyers will choose a different plan if insurance companies go too far in that regard(hence the exchanges). It's not perfect, but it's the best we could manage in the political situation.
So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system
Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
You want to ruin your body, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't be penalized for your actions.
What makes you think that socialized/national health insurance system is any different from any other health insurance mechanism? If you have private health insurance, and this insurance company does not explicitly state in it's insurance agreements that alcoholism, smoking, drug use and the afflictions these things cause are not covered by the insurance policy then you are already paying for the treatment of people who wilfully ruined their body. Sometimes it can also be difficult to prove that a disease was caused by some habit rather than by something else and totally unrelated. Many health insurance policies cover at least some form of treatment for things like this, for example, for addicts to help them quit the habit. Of course this varies between companies and countries. The question of whether alcoholics with cirrhosis of the liver, drug addicts or smokers with terminal lung cancer should get medical care in a socialized system is a difficult topic. Are we really comfortable with people like this being thrown into the street to die? There is a question here about compassion and basic human decency, you might want to consult your bible on that subject. I'm an atheist myself but as I recall Jesus Christ had some very thought provoking and insightful things to say about compassion.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What, so libertarians now want to be given a place of their own? Is there any part of their philosophy which isn't hypocritical through the core?
Screw that, they should have to defend their claims against a military onslaught, just like countless other countries/peoples have had to do over the years.
Take for example Native Americans, whose land was seized by force. Libertarians are OK with that, but not OK with having to carve out their own land in a similar way?
Gutless hypocritcal cowards, that what libertarians are.
So, you happen to have any history of cancer in your family? Other congenital diseases? You take part in any risky activities or behaviors? Do you maintain an optimal BMI and eat only nutritious foods, while getting the proper amounts and types of exercise?
I shouldn't have to support your bad genetic heritage or poor life choices. If you can't afford any and all future medical costs out of your own pocket, well then, you can just go off and die in a gutter. Or do you prefer the current system, where instead of paying a little extra in your insurance bill to assist in getting all of "those" folks pre-treatment, or preventative care and counseling, instead you pay a huge amount in property taxes each year to treat them as emergencies in your local county hospital? You DO realize that you pay for it either way, right? Even if you don't own property, your rent is based, in part, on the property taxes your landlord has to pay. The prices you pay for groceries, gas, clothes, are in part determined by the property taxes each of the shops has to pay, etc. Multiple studies have show 15-1 or better returns on investment by having preventative care available. Even the much quoted recent Oregon study, if you look at the data and include ALL patients showed significant benefits from preventative care for folks that otherwise would have to rely on only emergency care.
The result of your attitude is either 1) Insurance should be banned totally and everyone should have to pay out of pocket, or 2) Insurance companies, backed by the force of law, should be able to force each and every one who wants pooled protection to live a monitored and restricted life according to the companies actuaries that result in the highest profit to the insurance company.
How about we recognize that we don't want people dying in the gutter around us, that we would prefer to protect children and others who are reliant on guardians from their guardian's poor choices, and that if we are going to end up paying for it anyway, we'd rather pay a lesser amount for better outcomes rather than more for expensive, morally superior, less desirable outcomes.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Insurance needs to be decoupled from industry. It puts us at a competitive disadvantage and it makes coverage worthless when you really need it, since you can't work when you are in the hospital.
Single payer is the only system that makes sense, even discounting the huge savings inherent in such a system compared to our current system.
Cheap storage VM.
Both things have no relation at all. Of course you can have a free market in health care, the same way you can have a free market in food or transportation.
And, yeah, the demand is very inelastic. That means that in a free market, companies will compete to get market share, and not cooperate to increase the market. That makes it a brutal market for companies, but doesn't change things very much for consumers.
Rethinking email
Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
If you have insurance you pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
Why would recreational drugs that don't wreck organs or that organ be included?
Do they also exclude people who partake in high risk exercise?
The thing about health insurance is that it isn't really insurance in the traditional sense.
Traditional insurance is something like "just in case something bad happens while you are covered, we will pay for it."
But that's not how our healthcare system works. People get sick while they are unemployed, they get sick while they are employed, they may stay sick after losing their job. Healthcare costs are exceptionally expensive, so it is unrealistic to expect ANYBODY short of multi-millionaires to be able to afford to cover their own healthcare costs in the event of a serious illness. Therefore the only solution is socialism, and our socialist system is referred to as "health insurance". Health insurance MUST be structured such that everybody, healthy and sick, pays into the system to one extent or another through premiums, so that there are enough cash reserves in the system to pay for the care of people who get seriously ill.
The alternative would be that everybody who isn't EXTREMELY rich has to lead their life in fear that if they ever get cancer they will have to guaranteed to die through lack of care, but not until they first go bankrupt exhausting all of their financial resources. Even if they do have a few million in the bank due to hard work and careful savings, it might not be enough.
Society at large has decided that socialism or health insurance (which is rather socialist in nature) is vastly preferable to the alternative.
Now the fact that the medical industry is corrupt and dramatically overcharges for things that could be cheap, just because the insurance company is paying and can afford it... that's a serious matter that should be dealt with somehow.
My point is, denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is ludicrous in a world where insurance is necessary for survival, but not everyone who is capable and hardworking can always have insurance, all it takes is a few months of unemployment in a tough economy. But then when they get a job with good coverage... sorry, you got sick in between jobs, we'll just let you die!
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
When you think about how unacceptable this would be anywhere else, you have to wonder how this insane system came to be as it is.
Here is the in-depth answer if you're interested. I usually get shot down for posting this link here on Slashdot because it doesn't comport well with the groupthink on health care, but if you honestly want to hear a good economic argument explaining why health care in the United States is so expensive instead of the same old "greedy insurance company" canards, it's probably worth your time.