Buffet calls them a tapeworm, I call it the next, ongoing rape of the American middle class.
Buffet calls them a tapeworm, I call it the next, ongoing rape of the American middle class.
- I leave my last employer on July 21, 2017
- My old employer rols me off system on last day of July 2017
- On June 2017, they switch HR providers from TriNET to Namely and now the payment processor is Discovery Benefits and the Dental/Vision are now in Guardian. (So it went from Aetna to Aetna/Guardian and two other companies).
Since my wife is high-risk and I have thyroid issues, our best bet was COBRA ($1,000 / mo) because the new startup I joined did not offer group health coverage.
What followed next was this:
- The HR person who was handling my COBRA papers left during all of this. Switched jobs.
- Thanksgiving break
- Weeks of "the system will update this weekend with your information."
- "They were suppose to process your dental, but they never did"
My wife and I tried using our new AETNA IDs once we had gotten them and they still told us that it did not work. I had to have an expensive thyroid blood test pushed back. Multiple dentist appointments postponed. Everything.
FINALLY, once I got my SSN and ID for my coverage on AETNA, I had to pay back premiums all the way back to August 2017 just to keep using my coverage. So that's $4,000 USD for services I could not essentially render. $4000 of my hard-earned money. Gone. For nothing -- basically.
They had the gall to tell me (AETNA did) "Sir, if you paid for anything out of pocket during the time of your retroactive coverage, we can pay you back any cost you incurred."
The whole reason we get insurance is to avoid those high prices.
I'm so spent. I'm not an angry man but these health insurance companies really drove it home for me.
I feel taken advantaged of and it really stinks.
But only for unpredictable, irregular events. Anything else is uninsurable. If someone sells you "insurance" for wellness checkups[1], regular, scheduled screenings ... or tires on your car ... you can be absolutely assured that they are taking from you as much, or more, in premiums than the cost of those services.
What you are looking for is socialized, state sponsored medical care. There is no problem in looking for that and I make no value judgement here on that.
The first step would be to stop mischaracterizing this as "insurance". It's not. It can't be.
[1] Yes, certainly wellness checkups and things like them can be enormously economically beneficial for the provider since they spend up front preventative dollars instead of emergency, acute dollars later but it still doesn't change the fact that those are not underwriteable as they are regular, on-going expenses - very much like the tires on your car.
[1] https://www.law360.com/articles/940691/fla-compounding-pharm...
[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/27/huge...
Additionally, lots of doctors often bill incorrectly on purpose so that a particular services/procedure gets covered, so I am not sure we should keep "justified" and "validated" in these discussions.
This might have worked if everyone was required to buy from the market place and there were no employer plans. Obama's famous "You can keep your existing health coverage" was a terrible, terrible decision.
I watched the Medicare/Medicate group for my company and they might have complained about not getting enough money, but I really think they did. Things had fixed prices and there'd be plenty of money if BlueCross didn't spend money on advertising, useless wellness programs and shitty IBM technology.
Everyone should just get Meidcare/Medicade. The government won't control healthcare, it will just get contracted out to providers. They'll have to cut costs and not waste so much money (they waste A LOT!)
Capitalism + Health care is a failed experiment. Socialized health care does work, in every high income country that's not the United States. Australia fought against the Abbot government when they wanted to introduce copays. That's right, Australians don't have doctor co-pays (they kinda do now, but wavers are in place and the plan was effectively defeated).
The fact that the US government requires us to buy private health insurance at insane rates is absolutely insane and the Supreme Court should have struck it down. You are not a car. Your body shouldn't have a fee for existing.
You generally can't negotiate in advance though, because most providers seem unable or unwilling to tell you what anything is going to cost.
Now that organizations in the US have reached a breaking point, those costs are becoming clear to the consumers and they don't like it. You're absolutely right that the term insurance is bastardized in the healthcare setting, but people will have no choice but to understand.
If people want to blame somebody, they can start with the doctors union that restricts the number of residency positions open.
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/how-medicare-s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialty_Society_Relative_Val...
https://www.aafp.org/news/practice-professional-issues/20120...
Good for the doctors though, at least they're smart enough to bargain in their own interest.
We looked into ACA... but we thought that the process of switching over from AETNA to COBRA would be painless (weeks at most). So we just went through with it. We did not know it would end up like it has.
The operations for insurance is a daunting, slippery rope. Can you not lay some fault onto insurance and its operations?
What would you characterize this as? People slipping up? That's how the "system has always worked"? People forgetting to process paperwork needed so people can get to their appointments?
(But yes, admittedly, this is just pedantry.)
But if the events are rather certain, then the insurer can only act as a payment plan on the events. The risk is 100%, so at least 100% is priced into your premium (profits, a overhead, etc take it over 100).
Even covered wellness care probably comes out a bit less than it would otherwise cost, because not everyone uses it even though it's covered. Some people, like me, just don't go to the doctor.
Now, it is common for "socialized" to be a scary word. So that people try and name it other things. But you aren't spreading the risk here. You are only spreading the costs.
Well, I'd also argue that you are spreading the benefits. Which is a good thing to me. Point being, though, it is not insurance.
This is why I used wellness checks and tire changes as examples - they are regular and universal.
But the I continuously got the "we have you down for this provider" when my COBRA admin told me that that provider could no longer give me coverage. I needed to AETNA to file me under a new provider.
Then I called AETNA and they still said "so and so" is listed as my provider. I told them to change it. "It's gonna be at least a week to update your information, sir."
Call back next week, "sir, you are still listed on 'so and so' provider."
It was exhausting.
edit: but the thing was, I trust them to give me good advice. The HR providers. I figured, well if they haven't said anything about deferred payments, it might not be applicable to my situation so I never brought it up...
Have you been able to find a workable alternative or are you still stuck with AETNA?
- Bank of America messes up my loan because the person doing my paperwork was a newbie. No biggie, right?
- Branch manager offers to fix the issue and prioritize it so that we can close in time.
- Branch manager is unable to fix it in time so offers to pay our closing costs and re-finance the loan afterwards.
- Branch manager leaves the company after our loan is completed.
- Don't qualify for re-fi because we owe more than the house is worth.
- Don't qualify for loan modification because we've never been late on our payments.
- Reported to FHA. Got in touch with local news station. Immediate response from BofA's Office of the President.
- Rep from Office of the President that was "assisting" quits 2 weeks later.
- Get another rep and they start a "forced" loan modification. Assign me another, lower rep and promise follow-up in 2 weeks.
- Repeat ad nauseum until I literally can't even and decide to foreclose because it's such a cluster.
Your last few sentences really strike a chord here. I totally feel for you.
This was back in the early 2000's just before the actual market crash. It was insane to me that banks were willing to work with people that bought houses they couldn't afford but that they wouldn't work with me on a loan modification because I wasn't delinquent.
I don't understand why it should take days to "update" a system. Now, I now next to nothing about how their current system works but information updated should not take so long.
The insurance industry needs a technological overhaul but I doubt it will happen.
Edit: And great that there might be a new value conscious private competitor out there - but I'd note that all those other developed nations that are individually, collectively, and vastly outperforming our health system all have some form of government control on drug and procedure prices. And a single private company would be very hard pressed to replicate the negotiation leverage of a government. I'd also note that I'd trust JPMorgan about nil to be concerned about customer value over company profits. Other nations have a health system, and at the end of the day we have a health market.
The numbers are small by world standards but I guess the drug companies are paranoid of this idea catching on in, say the US.
I’m sure it will be regarded as communism, but hey, it makes the market actually work for us here.
I am also high-risk and have always found that the Obamacare market had prices close to or lower than the unsubsidized cost of an employer provided plan.
The most frustrating for me is that the doctors can't even guess how much their facility will charge for the treatment they decide is necessary, much less how much the bill will be after insurance gets their cut. It is a major barrier for me to get MRIs and blood tests. Especially blood tests, which seem to range in cost from practically free to thousands of dollars for a single blood test panel.
It's infuriating, and no matter how closely I read the insurance fine print I still cannot guess what the hospital and insurance plan negotiated ahead of time. Kaiser was way better, at least there the incentives were aligned to sane billing procedures.
They can't fix the entire HC market, but they can have a great start.
Berkshire has never paid a dime of dividends to anybody.
What's your next premise?
I'm not evaluating Buffett either way with that statement, just pointing out that it is possible and probably necessary to evaluate his behavior without giving consideration to his pledge.
Most people used to do both at the same time and it seemed to work pretty well before Buffett came along. And there's a good analogy to your last point - someone who rents an apartment for 40 years when they could have bought an equivalently valued home two times over. They shouldn't complain when they die with a net worth of zero, they had a roof over their head for 40 years!
Also, mutual policy holders don't "overpay" for insurance as all dividends are returned to them. Only a private insurance company policy holder could overpay. Just thinking about it now, Buffett wouldn't be so rich if his policy holders weren't overpaying, as you're implying.
That’s a great thing.
I mean if you want to make an anti-capitalist argument on a message board owned by a venture capital firm, feel free. But by definition "profit = good"
There's an entire college course called Philosophy I that basically goes over 7 to 10 different moral compasses. The only one that seems to win out (aka the only one people remember after the class is Moral Relativism).
This is why I believe single payer healthcare is generally the best solution.
However, in the current situation, I think this idea to create a healthcare company dedicated to serving their employees, "free from profit-making incentives and constraints," is a great idea, one which I hope others will attempt if it ends up a success.
What i’d love to see is a commercial business having vertical integration. Insanely cheap basics like X-rays, mris, and other checks. Heavy use of AI based diagnosis confirmed by doctors, and a big insurance pool where profits go back into scaling healthcare.
Basically current American healthcare is not scalable. Period.
You just might not have the option of telling someone it's 10 grand (with ridiculous profit margins) to get an earlier diagnosis and a chance at actually living.
I'm not too sure about that. It's taken an entire year for the GOP to start to actually succeed at chipping away at the ACA, and they have legislative and executive control. If we could get sweeping reform in a more favorable political climate, something not plagued with the implementation issues the ACA has labored under, it might stand a chance. The next administration might find it politically untenable to take it away if it actually works well.
They know all their companies will earn more money if there is more money in everyone’s pockets. Look at how much some people are spending per year on healthcare. Someone in this thread mentioned $30k for his family in a year just for insurance. If he even saved a third of that, it’d end up being spent somewhere. A good economy benefits all those big companies. The losers in this are the healthcare companies.
As long as this company doesn’t go public, it seems like it will be able to stay away from that. It will be extremely competitive against companies trying to raise profits.
Amazon might decide to make their own networking hardware or their own power generation for their datacenters to save money, but they spend more money on headcount than on datacenters, and a huge chunk of the headcount expense goes to health insurance companies.
Healthcare should be nationalized. Then the government would also have other positive incentives meant to lower healthcare costs, like reducing pollution, sugar in foods, other dangerous foods on the market, and so on.
Another true story, even with a Health Care provider and insurance company I don’t hate: after a routine visit, I had to spend more time on the phone with both of them than I spent in front of the Dr In order to have the service code corrected so the payment would count towards my deductible. The administrators I had to work with are paid employees, their costs not only have to be covered, but profitable. Very polite, capable and professional and completely unnecessary. I dare any non-American to come into our system and figure out in-network vs. out of network, co-payment, co-insurance, personal deductibles, family deductibles, lifetime maximums, deductible vs. non deductible services... and then write an App that compares plans, even within the same insurer’s portfolio and tells me which is the better plan.
Intentional value obfuscation, unnecessarily complex, adds to the bottom line.
Fortunately we have the option of publicly funded health care here in Europe which is what she recommends for anything serious.
If I profit off of you being sick, then I need to keep you sick.
But this has other problems. Incentives are tricky.
The downside I was hinting at is that as a patient, cutting costs isn't always what you want. If it means more prevention or paying less, it's good. Otherwise it'll probably mean worse service.
They profit much more if you pay them money but never use their service.
You can always hope for the best so let's see what happens. Looking at the American health system I am not very optimistic.
Berkshire is a holding company, all the not so nice decisions are made by the CEOs of the companies Berkshire owns.
Fortunately they have plenty of lobbyist which can be put to good use.
Some people might not be aware that the vast majority of large employers in the U.S. that offer health insurance are self funded (i.e. they collect premiums from themselves/employees and take on all the insurance risk), so anything they can do to lower any direct/indirect cost with plan administration, claims, drug cost (big one), healthcare utilization, etc. will save them billions easily.
Something can be good for the bottom line and good for society. It’s not one or the other!
>Only about 26 percent of employers with between 100 and 499 employees self-insure, compared with more than 82 percent of employers with 500 or more employees, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
That being said, they don't usually take on ALL the insurance risk, they typically purchase stop gap insurance for very large claims.
Obviously the ideal would be you have a system that accommodates "my kid has a fever/fell out of a tree and broke their arm" majority of medical issues who could be helped by basically anyone trained in basic medicine while also accommodating people who need a rapport with a highly trained/expensive specialist.
That's how I took the comment...apologies in advance if this comes off as insensitive to your condition, definitely not my intention.
"Has seen me in the past" and "has my charts" are not indicative of medical efficacy. There are doctors I have rapport with, absolutely. I still have lunch occasionally with the physician who was my family doctor as a child and still sees my parents. But that doesn't mean his medical treatment is going to be any better than a doctor seeing me for the second or third time.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of...
They always says it hurts the patient's care. I think there is some truth to both sides, but we'll probably never know. Too many people are making out like bandits in the current health care system.
edit: This (quite extensive and longitudinal) study would suggest that it's true. Check out the sources on the paper for other studies with similar findings:
We truly live in the darkest timeline.
Not really. I want someone I can trust. For my primary care needs, I have established trust with someone and know their capabilities, their business practices, and their character. I don't want to roll the dice with someone new when I can still go to them.
Example 1: My primary care provider(been seeing him for 10 years.
Example 2: My dentist (been seeing him or his predecessor for 30 years)
It sounded more like fitbit with cloud services than insurance.
I believe it's initially for the employees of those companies. If they can make it work for them, they have a great team (ecommerce, finance, insurance) to back a larger rollout. The announcement says it's about providing healthcare at lower cost with better results, which sounds like a lot more than wearables.
If there are healthcare providers involved giving direct healthcare, there will need to be systems and development around medical records. That could easily be sold as a product to hospitals and providers outside of the AMZN/JPM/BRK company down the road.
Taking a "beginner's mindset" to me sounds like they plan on writing their own stuff, except for interoperation like HL7, which is great because most of the stuff from EPIC/Allscripts/Cerner is drowning in technical debt.
The biggest problem I see are the costs. The healthcare industry can't even tell you why costs differ on so many levels of services. The industry isn't transparent and they'll fight this because it's too profitable for them.