Simone Giertz

[hamster_nz]

Oh my.... I'm wishing you the best!



P.S. Pirate eye-patches are rad.

[Seph.b]

I love Simone. I hope she has a speedy recovery.

[Mr. Scram]

It seems she got lucky in the sense that it's a benign tumour. Her sense of humour is undeniable, though. She sounds like a trooper.

This goes to show that if you have something unusual going on with your body, it pays to go to a doctor. Too many people wait until it's too late. Take care of yourself. You're much more fragile than you think.

[nctnico]

I've never heard or seen her videos before but in the other videos she is quite funny. I hope she recovers because she is way too young to 'go'.

[NiHaoMike]

I've never heard or seen her videos before but in the other videos she is quite funny. I hope she recovers because she is way too young to 'go'.

She is basically a comedian who intentionally engineers stuff that doesn't work well.

[nidlaX]

Oh no...

[AntiProtonBoy]

Saddened by the news. Hope she makes a quick recovery after the surgery.

[EEVblog]

Damn, so sad to hear, that's rotten luck 
I'm confident she'll pull through though, even brain surgery isn't brain surgery these days.

My dad had a massive brain tumor when I was young, prognosis was that he would not survive the surgery if they tried. No one wanted to do the surgery as this type hadn't been done before in the country, but eventually they found someone willing to "give it a go".
Well he survived the first surgery and I remember him coming home with 1/3rd of his skull missing (seriously, a huge concave indent in his head) as they deemed it too traumatic to put it back in knowing they had to go back in a 2nd time.
They sent him home to be with his family because they figured he wasn't going to survive the next surgery.
You guessed it, he survived the next surgery and lived a relatively decent life (but on medication and not able to work) for another 20 years to see his grandkids (my sisters) born and grow up. In the end it was a stroke that killed him, likely because he refused to give up smoking after they told him it would kill him. That was 40yo medicine and surgery at work.

[geekGee]

I feel she has the strength, support and positive attitude to pull through. 

She's got more "balls" than I would have facing this situation.

[NiHaoMike]

She's in the US so she should have an easy time accepting crypto to pay for medical bills (what's not covered by insurance) and whatnot. Maybe she or one of her friends should make a howto video explaining how to get started mining Curecoin and Foldingcoin? (From my experience, I can see beginners getting confused on how to set up the accounts and Folding@Home to merge mine the two.)

[chickenHeadKnob]

What Simone has reminds me of the case of a Canadian pro tennis player Helen Kelesi. She had to under go 7 operations to remove a benign tumor(s) around the optic nerve that kept on regrowing after they were removed. It might not be outright metastasis, but still the next closest thing and a damm serious health crisis none the less. I hope for Simone sake the mass is localized and doesn't come back.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-tumour-the-size-of-a-tennis-ball-couldnt-stop-hurricane-helen/article1352503/

[chickenHeadKnob]

Simone is going into surgery today (may 30) she just posted a new short video from her hospital bed:

[Ampera]

Good luck to her. Hopefully she makes it out alright.

[bitwelder]

Latest update from Simone, few hours ago:

Three years ago I made a toothbrush helmet and posted a video about it on YouTube. I could never have imagined this adventure and it’s all thanks to you. Also, just got the lab results and the tumor was noncancerous! So big fricking cheers to us and to many years ahead

https://twitter.com/SimoneGiertz/status/1005200679055454208

[Brumby]

That is good news.

[Marco]

i wonder what ppl do w/o insurance 

Personal bankruptcy and medicaid.

[Mr. Scram]

Personal bankruptcy and medicaid.

Isn't it one of those student loan type deals where the debt persists even when going bankrupt or after death? With those kind of numbers it would be too easy for everyone to just declare bankruptcy after a major medical incident, or that's what the health care provider might think.

[Howardlong]

after $232736.56 ... "what a bargain!" she said
i wonder what ppl do w/o insurance 

Indeed. Sadly my neice has had a similar problem to Simone at around the same time, and she’s about the same age. It was diagnosed about three or four months ago after two fainting attacks in two weeks, although for her it’s turned out to be not quite such a good prognosis. After removing the offending brain blob, she’s since had six weeks of combined radio and chemotherapy 5 days/week, a month off, and now is back on daily chemo for the next few months to try to flush out any more nasties. She puts on a very brave face, unbelievable emotional strength and balls.

I don’t even want to think what the bill for that little lot would be.

[nctnico]

after $232736.56 ... "what a bargain!" she said
i wonder what ppl do w/o insurance 

Indeed. Sadly my neice has had a similar problem to Simone at around the same time, and she’s about the same age. It was diagnosed about three or four months ago after two fainting attacks in two weeks, although for her it’s turned out to be not quite such a good prognosis. After removing the offending brain blob, she’s since had six weeks of combined radio and chemotherapy 5 days/week, a month off, and now is back on daily chemo for the next few months to try to flush out any more nasties. She puts on a very brave face, unbelievable emotional strength and balls.

I don’t even want to think what the bill for that little lot would be.

Most places have a saner health care system but it will be expensive.

[james_s]

Personal bankruptcy and medicaid.

Isn't it one of those student loan type deals where the debt persists even when going bankrupt or after death? With those kind of numbers it would be too easy for everyone to just declare bankruptcy after a major medical incident, or that's what the health care provider might think.

That's pretty much what does happen, medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. If you end up with bills of a few hundred thousand dollars in many cases it makes no sense to even try to work for a living when you end up owing anything you could ever possibly earn. Collectively we spend more per person on healthcare than any other nation, by a wide margin, and what we get is a nightmare.

[coppice]

Personal bankruptcy and medicaid.

Isn't it one of those student loan type deals where the debt persists even when going bankrupt or after death? With those kind of numbers it would be too easy for everyone to just declare bankruptcy after a major medical incident, or that's what the health care provider might think.

That's pretty much what does happen, medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. If you end up with bills of a few hundred thousand dollars in many cases it makes no sense to even try to work for a living when you end up owing anything you could ever possibly earn. Collectively we spend more per person on healthcare than any other nation, by a wide margin, and what we get is a nightmare.

When our son was born extremely premature a nurse loaned me a book on people's experiences with having seriously premie babies. The book was American, and was dominated by stories of lives of financial hardship caused by a new born baby's massive bills not being covered by the parent's insurance, like they thought they would be.

I have met three Americans who say they will never return to the US after being declared bankrupt after an accident. That's a pretty sad way to see your homeland.

[Marco]

too easy for everyone to just declare bankruptcy after a major medical incident

Most people don't don't hide their assets. If you file for chapter 7 to get rid of medical debt you can say goodbye to home equity for instance. When the individual mandate disappears you could take the calculated risk of taking no or non Obamacare insurance (ie. capped) and just rely on medicaid for a fallback, but it is a risk.

After those kinds of risks bites you personally I'm sure a lot of people change their perspective, but I feel those people should probably live outside of America. The individual mandate feels very un-American to me ... and the "inhumaneness" of personal bankruptcy a bit overblown. Welfare beggars who want to be choosers.

[CJay]

after $232736.56 ... "what a bargain!" she said
i wonder what ppl do w/o insurance 

 I watched that video last night and have to say I think that is a bargain, I'm really pleased she's come through it, I like Simone's sense of humour and attitude, she's also got a pretty interesting life story so far, plus my step brother had a very similar operation over a decae ago.

I'm also so thankful for the NHS here in Britain, where everyone contributes a little bit to make sure nobody has to face the terror of a bill like that and worrying that their 'insurance' might not pay.

Social healthcare FTW

[Pinkus]

Great news!

I'm also so thankful for the NHS here in Britain, where everyone contributes a little bit to make sure nobody has to face the terror of a bill like that and worrying that their 'insurance' might not pay.

Social healthcare FTW

For at least 50% of the Americans, the blue marked text above already counts as 'communism' which must therefore be strictly combated. Never give away anything that could benefit others.

[CJay]

Great news!

I'm also so thankful for the NHS here in Britain, where everyone contributes a little bit to make sure nobody has to face the terror of a bill like that and worrying that their 'insurance' might not pay.

Social healthcare FTW

For at least 50% of the Americans, the blue marked text above already counts as 'communism' which must therefore be strictly combated. Never give away anything that could benefit others.

I've had the conversation with a number of Americans, most of them believe they shouldn't have to help anyone else, trying to explain how it worked was a compelte waste of time and forget the 'common good', that was a compeltely alien concept to most.

Oddly the Americans who had used the NHS were already convinced of how much better it is.

Anyway, enough politics, I'm really pleased Simone has been so lucky.

[NiHaoMike]

They should heavily tax junk food to subsidize healthcare. A lot of the health issues seen today are related to unhealthy habits and those who live a healthy lifestyle do not want to pay for others' bad decisions.

[CJay]

They should heavily tax junk food to subsidize healthcare. A lot of the health issues seen today are related to unhealthy habits and those who live a healthy lifestyle do not want to pay for others' bad decisions.

I pay just over £1500 per year in tax for the NHS, that covers me for pretty much anything that happens, any illness, injury etc. even if it's a pre-existing condition.

If I need drugs in hospital then they're free, I pay no extra, prescriptions on discharge are usually free or, if they're prescribed by my doctor, I pay £8.80 per medication, again subsidised by the portion of my tax payment that goes to the NHS.

If I need dental care I pay a flat fee per treatment which is, again, subsidised by that £1500 per annum, medication again, £8.80.

I reckon I get a pretty good deal (the occasions where I've needed medical care, I've had great treatment and care) and I am happy that my tax contribution means that people who need healthcare get it, without having to worry about how to pay.

Call me a socialist if you like but I reckon that's what civilised, caring people in a decent society do for each other so tell me again how great it is to not have social healthcare?

[EEVblog]

after $232736.56 ... "what a bargain!" she said
i wonder what ppl do w/o insurance 

Did she have to actually pay that or was she insured?

$28k in Oz it seems, or free if you want to wait for a public hospital and get the work experience kid. I'd happily pony up the $28K for private and more for the best brain surgeon in the country.
When I had my knee op, I sort out the best surgeon in the country and only paid like $3k. As a bonus I also got one of the best anesthetists in the country too.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Hospitals/Going_To_hospital/cost-of-care/Pages/default.aspx

[NiHaoMike]

She said she had insurance.

[T3sl4co1l]

Keep in mind also, hospitals bill you for $ridiculous, any and every thing they can think of, at prices that have no basis anywhere.  It isn't meaningful.  Apparently the trick is to refuse payment until they send you the bill, itemized, priced correctly, for things actually used, at more or less the rate the insurance co's get.

Which is still a ridiculous amount, but that's a political issue, so let's not diverge too far that way.

Tim (has not had to do this, so take this with a grain of salt)

[NiHaoMike]

I'm pretty sure a big reason for the high initial quote is to make overpriced insurance look like a great deal.

[james_s]

A large part of it is that hospitals bill the maximum the insurance will pay, there are no cost controls of any kind so they submit a high bill and then it gets reduced to the max that can be paid. Another part of it is that the hospitals can't refuse treatment, so they must absorb the costs of those who can't pay. That's what opponents of universal healthcare don't seem to comprehend, we *already* pay for all the people who can't pay, we just do it in about the least efficient way possible. Even under ideal circumstances where one has good insurance it's a nightmare. In network, out of network, inpatient, outpatient, specialists, generic and name brand drugs, some stuff is covered, some isn't. You can go see a doctor and not know if you'll walk out with a $30 bill or a $30,000 bill. Doctors will prescribe treatments or medications and it's up to you to figure out if your insurance will cover that particular treatment. Sometimes you have to wait weeks for the insurance to approve it, or they deny coverage on treatment you need and then you have to battle them. It's absurd, and something my friends in other countries always seem baffled by how broken and backwards it all is here.

[Mr. Scram]

They should heavily tax junk food to subsidize healthcare. A lot of the health issues seen today are related to unhealthy habits and those who live a healthy lifestyle do not want to pay for others' bad decisions.

Honestly, most of the health issues seen today and the ever increasing cost of healthcare have to do with us getting older and older. Old, rickety people hanging in there are very expensive. Unhealthy people tend to die early and are therefore much cheaper. It's a bit of a catch 22, because you can hardly tax old age.

[Mr. Scram]

For at least 50% of the Americans, the blue marked text above already counts as 'communism' which must therefore be strictly combated. Never give away anything that could benefit others.

I guess that's what you get after half a century of indoctrination, but the relentless fear of communism and socialism has caused the US and its citizens way more harm than communism could ever have done.

[Pinkus]

A large part of it is that hospitals bill the maximum the insurance will pay

Oh, yeah, I remember my wife getting cystitis on vacation in the US in 1998.
Since we did not know (at that time there was no smartphone with internet) where we could find which doctor, we went to a small hospital that we happened to pass.

The lady at reception was kind enough to make it clear to us tourists, that we do NOT want to be treated there, because that could quickly cost us several thousand dollars. We'd better go to Dr. xy, whose address she gave us. That was then reasonably priced (can't remember, but was OK, maybe $50 or $100).

[Mr. Scram]

Oh, yeah, I remember my wife getting cystitis on vacation in the US in 1998.
Since we did not know (at that time there was no smartphone with internet) where we could find which doctor, we went to a small hospital that we happened to pass.

The lady at reception was kind enough to make it clear to us tourists, that we do NOT want to be treated there, because that could quickly cost us several thousand dollars. We'd better go to Dr. xy, whose address she gave us. That was then reasonably priced (can't remember, but was OK, maybe $50 or $100).

I think I remember a story of a British lady that unexpectedly went into labour in the US, with the child needing all sorts of care for being premature. They couldn't travel home due to the baby's health, racking up the costs and leaving them in a financial sink hole.

Luckily the hospital decided to eat the costs after the media reported on the matter, but it's certainly a nightmare. There are plenty of other cases where people got stuck in the US with a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars that didn't end so well. Not a lot of fun.

[ttelectronic]

A large part of it is that hospitals bill the maximum the insurance will pay, there are no cost controls of any kind so they submit a high bill and then it gets reduced to the max that can be paid. Another part of it is that the hospitals can't refuse treatment, so they must absorb the costs of those who can't pay. That's what opponents of universal healthcare don't seem to comprehend, we *already* pay for all the people who can't pay, we just do it in about the least efficient way possible. Even under ideal circumstances where one has good insurance it's a nightmare. In network, out of network, inpatient, outpatient, specialists, generic and name brand drugs, some stuff is covered, some isn't. You can go see a doctor and not know if you'll walk out with a $30 bill or a $30,000 bill. Doctors will prescribe treatments or medications and it's up to you to figure out if your insurance will cover that particular treatment. Sometimes you have to wait weeks for the insurance to approve it, or they deny coverage on treatment you need and then you have to battle them. It's absurd, and something my friends in other countries always seem baffled by how broken and backwards it all is here.

It's so screwed up, and the attitude is why should I cover someone elses bill as you said they don't even realize that is what is done anyways, you cannot get blood from a stone. I will take my socialist healthcare any day over a system where you are out hundreds or thousands even if you have insurance if they cannot find a way to drop the costlier patients.

To the people that say why should I pay for someone else, I always want to say do you care about your brothers, sisters, cousins, grandparents, parents etc etc. It's such a selfish attitude that I don't think will ever change. Meanwhile the insurance cos make bank of of the malpractice insurance and health insurance etc. Ugh. I don't know if there is any hope of people getting why universal healthcare is better.   

No healthcare system is perfect. But, I'm glad for what we have.

[Pinkus]

I frequently remember a scene in a television documentary about American hospitals. That was about six or seven years ago. It did shock me that much, that every one and now I remember this scene which left me with tears in my eyes. I repeat: this was a real documentary, not scripted reality:

An elderly gentleman came into the emergency room (I think). After the examination it turned out that he had a bowel obstruction. (FYI: if this is not operated, it ends deadly)

Apparently, his insurance company refused to pay for the necessary operation, so he was admitted to the hospital but only received painkillers. He was made clear by the doctors that he would die shortly and that he should settle his affairs.
I wonder what a system this is where the insurance company decides if it's worth saving me. So it will always come down to me becoming too expensive for the insurance company and they will let me die. As a farewell they at least pay for the painkillers.....

[mtdoc]

The medical "system" in the USA is a racket designed to maximize profits for insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and the large hospital corporations.   

The political system in the US has been poisoned by money from these interests so that a large number of Americans falsely believe that single payer healthcare as practiced in every other developed country is somehow inferior or more expensive (it is neither).

Even with that, the majority of Americans do favor changing to a single payer system, yet the corporate owned politicians do not follow the will of the people. We live in an oligarchy not a democracy.

Most of the people on the ground working in health care: doctors, nurses, techs, etc  are doing the best they can and do not put profits over people (there are exceptions).

[Bassman59]

The medical "system" in the USA is a racket designed to maximize profits for insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and the large hospital corporations.   

The political system in the US has been poisoned by money from these interests so that a large number of Americans falsely believe that single payer healthcare as practiced in every other developed country is somehow inferior or more expensive (it is neither).

Even with that, the majority of Americans do favor changing to a single payer system, yet the corporate owned politicians do not follow the will of the people. We live in an oligarchy not a democracy.

Most of the people on the ground working in health care: doctors, nurses, techs, etc  are doing the best they can and do not put profits over people (there are exceptions).

All of the above is entirely true.

That there is even the notion of for-profit health care is horrific.

That our for-profit health care is paid for using for-profit insurance is the insult to the injury.

I live in America -- a third-world country that will not admit such.

[NiHaoMike]

To the people that say why should I pay for someone else, I always want to say do you care about your brothers, sisters, cousins, grandparents, parents etc etc. It's such a selfish attitude that I don't think will ever change. Meanwhile the insurance cos make bank of of the malpractice insurance and health insurance etc. Ugh. I don't know if there is any hope of people getting why universal healthcare is better.   

The problem is that those who live an unhealthy lifestyle unfairly take more from the system than those who live a healthy lifestyle, thus raising cost for everyone. Taxing junk food is one way to try to level that. Note that I'm not biased against those who incur large medical costs due to misfortune like what happened to Simone - just those who got into it through bad choices of their own.

To make an analogy, why should a driver who has had a spotless driving record for 10 years pay as much for car insurance as someone who regularly runs red lights, drives way above the speed limit, and has been in several serious accidents in the last 10 years?

[james_s]

I guess that's what you get after half a century of indoctrination, but the relentless fear of communism and socialism has caused the US and its citizens way more harm than communism could ever have done.

I'm going to try not to be political or take sides here, but to a lot of people "socialism" is a dirty word that gets used to describe all manner of negative things regardless of whether they have anything at all to do with socialism. When a lot of people hear that word they think "communism" and have images of oppressive Soviet dictatorships. Nevermind that none of these "isms" really exist in a vacuum. Some concepts like insurance are inherently socialist, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with capitalism. For the most part I think the capitalist free market works very well, but health care is one of those things that I don't think it is well suited for.

[james_s]

The problem is that those who live an unhealthy lifestyle unfairly take more from the system than those who live a healthy lifestyle, thus raising cost for everyone. Taxing junk food is one way to try to level that. Note that I'm not biased against those who incur large medical costs due to misfortune like what happened to Simone - just those who got into it through bad choices of their own.

To make an analogy, why should a driver who has had a spotless driving record for 10 years pay as much for car insurance as someone who regularly runs red lights, drives way above the speed limit, and has been in several serious accidents in the last 10 years?

That sounds good in theory, but how do you implement it in practice? What counts as junkfood and how much impact does that food really have? Should we tax people for being lazy and not exercising? Should we tax people for eating too much food? I mean you can get fat eating nothing but fruits and vegetables if you pig out all the time. Sedentary lifestyles, air pollution and genetic factors have a huge impact on overall health, should we tax people based on their genes? Seems it would make more sense to provide health coverage for everyone since we are already paying for it anyway, and create incentives for being healthy. It's ironic though that if you look at the regions where people on average are most vocally opposed to things like universal healthcare, those regions tend to have some of the highest obesity rates in the nation.

For the most part a driver with a poor record does pay more for insurance than one with a clean record. I do find it annoying that the difference is not greater though. I have an absolutely spotless record for more than 20 years, never gotten a ticket and the only accidents I've been in I was rear-ended while stopped and yet my insurance rates creep up regularly. At least driving is technically optional, I don't have to choose between buying car insurance and dying.

[NiHaoMike]

I mean you can get fat eating nothing but fruits and vegetables if you pig out all the time. Sedentary lifestyles, air pollution and genetic factors have a huge impact on overall health, should we tax people based on their genes?

Freelee the Banana Girl has disproved that it's possible to get fat eating just (unprocessed or minimally processed) fruits and vegetables. I did consider the possibility of subsidizing gym memberships, but couldn't figure out a way that would keep the gyms honest (they'll definitely raise prices to compensate) and not be biased against those who exercise in other ways. Air pollution is not really something that can be controlled on an individual level, except for smoking which should be outlawed in public. Genetics is not something an individual chooses so diseases caused by it fall under the "misfortune" category.

[james_s]

It has been shown though that there is a strong genetic link to obesity, along with many other factors. Sometimes people are fat because they overeat and/or don't exercise, but some people have the fortune of being able to eat practically anything they want while not gaining weight. I had a friend when I was younger who used to complain that he couldn't gain weight and his appetite was making him broke. I wouldn't take one person's experiment as proof that it's not possible to get fat by eating fruits, she may well be one of those lucky people whose body doesn't seem to stockpile a lot of fat.

[Gyro]

It's so screwed up, and the attitude is why should I cover someone elses bill as you said they don't even realize that is what is done anyways, you cannot get blood from a stone. I will take my socialist healthcare any day over a system where you are out hundreds or thousands even if you have insurance if they cannot find a way to drop the costlier patients.

Speaking of blood (sorry, tenuous link), I think one of the big money oriented  issues (the flip side of private medical bills?) with the US health system is the practice of paying for blood donations. This leads to the people in greatest financial need, and potentially least suitability, making up the majority of 'donations'.

There was a huge historical scandal in the UK over the number of Hemophiliacs contracting and dying of HIV and Hepatitis-C due to the use of imported blood products. In the NHS, blood donations are exactly that, we bleed for free. OK the system isn't perfect, there's always a need more donors, but donors have no reason to lie about their medical status or history.


Edit: I don't know how much of an issue contaminated blood products is in the US?  It's hard to believe that we were just sold the 'bad' stuff.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_tainted_blood_scandal

Edit 1: Just curious, how many other countries do pay for blood donations?

[NiHaoMike]

It has been shown though that there is a strong genetic link to obesity, along with many other factors. Sometimes people are fat because they overeat and/or don't exercise, but some people have the fortune of being able to eat practically anything they want while not gaining weight. I had a friend when I was younger who used to complain that he couldn't gain weight and his appetite was making him broke. I wouldn't take one person's experiment as proof that it's not possible to get fat by eating fruits, she may well be one of those lucky people whose body doesn't seem to stockpile a lot of fat.

Freelee the Banana Girl used to be fat, then she lost weight and became a fitness model just by eating healthy.

I know quite a few who eat a lot yet are really skinny. Most of them are Asians so it's obvious genetics is the main factor at play. In college, I even dated one (in fact, the only one I know in that group who is not Asian) and she wanted to pay for what she ate because she apparently feels bad if someone else has to pay for it.

[chickenHeadKnob]

There was a huge historical scandal in the UK over the number of Hemophiliacs contracting and dying of HIV and Hepatitis-C due to the use of imported blood products. In the NHS, blood donations are exactly that, we bleed for free. OK the system isn't perfect, there's always a need more donors, but donors have no reason to lie about their medical status or history.

Edit: I don't know how much of an issue contaminated blood products is in the US?  It's hard to believe that we were just sold the 'bad' stuff.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_tainted_blood_scandal

Edit 1: Just curious, how many other countries do pay for blood donations?

OK this is wandering off-topic into the political realm but:
Canada has voluntary whole blood donations but was also caught-up into the factor 8 scandal. I personally know a (Canadian) hemophiliac who contracted hep C and became very sick. The wiki article you linked briefly mentions the dangerous manufacturing method for factor 8 used at the time but it actually was mind boggling stupidly negligent. They would take the paid  plasma donations from up to 8000 !  prisoners and junkies and place them into one stainless steel mixing vat where just one bad apple would spoil the brew. This mixing was a compounding amplifier of the paid donor source risk. They showed the vat on TV news and I had a literal face palm reaction.

You know one of Bill Clinton's early scandals while serving as Arkansas governor  was that  of the prison blood collection racket:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_Blood_Scandal

[ttelectronic]

The problem is that those who live an unhealthy lifestyle unfairly take more from the system than those who live a healthy lifestyle, thus raising cost for everyone. Taxing junk food is one way to try to level that. Note that I'm not biased against those who incur large medical costs due to misfortune like what happened to Simone - just those who got into it through bad choices of their own.

To make an analogy, why should a driver who has had a spotless driving record for 10 years pay as much for car insurance as someone who regularly runs red lights, drives way above the speed limit, and has been in several serious accidents in the last 10 years?

Funny, we also have goverment car insurance, so ..... 

However, this is the current insurance rate in our province. You tell me if that sounds to costly for you and unfair?
[see attached]
I have thin relatives, fat relatives, healthier and less healthier lifestyles and yes, even the fitter are running into medical problems. I still care about them all as family, how about you?

[james_s]

That chart doesn't have enough information to say. Is that for liability only coverage? Does it cover your own vehicle too? How high is the limit to the coverage? Does it matter what kind of car you drive or what your driving record is like?

For reference I pay about $50/month for liability and personal injury protection on a 34 year old car with a squeaky clean record. While I dislike insurance companies rather intensely I still have less issue with that being a for-profit business than medical care. I can choose not to drive a car if it really comes down to it and it won't kill me. The way the health insurance is now I'm required to have it *and* it's provided by for-profit corporations with absolutely no cost controls.

[ttelectronic]

That chart doesn't have enough information to say. Is that for liability only coverage? Does it cover your own vehicle too? How high is the limit to the coverage? Does it matter what kind of car you drive or what your driving record is like?

For reference I pay about $50/month for liability and personal injury protection on a 34 year old car with a squeaky clean record. While I dislike insurance companies rather intensely I still have less issue with that being a for-profit business than medical care. I can choose not to drive a car if it really comes down to it and it won't kill me. The way the health insurance is now I'm required to have it *and* it's provided by for-profit corporations with absolutely no cost controls.

Sorry, that is medical per month. Car insurance, varies, full coverage for our four door hatch I think sits around  1200 a year for us. It was just ironic that that car insurance was brought up, which is also a goverment insurance here. 

[james_s]

well she did say in the video she is under insurance, and it is quite a list of procedures it covered. but as i understood what insurance is, after 232k "spent", i bet she will now need to pay more insurance. or worse, will they no longer allow her to renew?

It depends on the insurance. For a while under the ACA an insurance company couldn't just drop you once you've actually tried to use them. Trump has been hell bent on dismantling that and other protections but I have not really followed what the current state of things are there. I just hope that some day we can catch up to the rest of the world and get a universal single payer system that covers at least the basics. We already pay way more than anyone else and what we have is terrible.

[EEVblog]

To make an analogy, why should a driver who has had a spotless driving record for 10 years pay as much for car insurance as someone who regularly runs red lights, drives way above the speed limit, and has been in several serious accidents in the last 10 years?

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

[Mr. Scram]

The problem is that those who live an unhealthy lifestyle unfairly take more from the system than those who live a healthy lifestyle, thus raising cost for everyone. Taxing junk food is one way to try to level that. Note that I'm not biased against those who incur large medical costs due to misfortune like what happened to Simone - just those who got into it through bad choices of their own.

To make an analogy, why should a driver who has had a spotless driving record for 10 years pay as much for car insurance as someone who regularly runs red lights, drives way above the speed limit, and has been in several serious accidents in the last 10 years?

This isn't true, as I've explained in one of my previous posts. If you check the numbers you'll see that people growing old and frail are a lot more expensive than unhealthy people. Those tend to have short sick beds and die after a relatively small amount of treatment. Smokers are for example a lot cheaper than people with a very healthy lifestyle. Of course, you can't exactly punish a good lifestyle.

Besides, treating people differently is a minefield. It can only lead to tales of sorrow for a vast array of reasons. One example would be that it's inevitable that lower income people will be less capable of exercising in an organised manner, or buying healthy foods. They'll be punished financially for having less means. Another example would be that you'd need to grade all kinds of behaviour present and past. It means giving up a lot of privacy and having a detailed track record dating back for decades. And who will grade the behaviour and all the complex interactions between factors? Surely not not insurers? Or other institutions or organisations with an inevitable own agenda?

Why should people be treated and pay the same? Because your reward for a healthy lifestyle us a longer and happier life, not a discount. If you need a financial incentive to take care of yourself you really need a long hard look at your priorities.

[Bassman59]

To make an analogy, why should a driver who has had a spotless driving record for 10 years pay as much for car insurance as someone who regularly runs red lights, drives way above the speed limit, and has been in several serious accidents in the last 10 years?

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

My (US-based) auto insurance policy has such a discount, too, called a "Premier Driver Discount." My guess is that all of the main-line (not economy/high-risk-pool) insurers have such a discount. I think it's all marketing, though. Instead of saying "BAD DRIVER SURCHARGE: $150," they say "GOOD DRIVER DISCOUNT: $150" and it's supposed to make you feel better.

Oddly, the policy has a "New Vehicle Discount." "Private passenger vehicles that are 3 years old or newer receive a discount. The discount percent decreases as the vehicle ages." I wonder why they offer this? A newer vehicle costs more to replace.

[Mr. Scram]

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

Of course insurers all over the world are now trying to get everyone to drive around with a black box to get a discount. Brake too hard or turn too aggressively and you lose money. It's not difficult to imagine a situation where that has become the new normal and protecting your privacy costs you money for not "voluntarily" participating.

Of course, your driving style isn't very relevant but the actual consequences are. A no claim bonus already takes this into account wonderfully, but that doesn't seem to stop the black box from being introduced in various permutations.

[Mr. Scram]

My (US-based) auto insurance policy has such a discount, too, called a "Premier Driver Discount." My guess is that all of the main-line (not economy/high-risk-pool) insurers have such a discount. I think it's all marketing, though. Instead of saying "BAD DRIVER SURCHARGE: $150," they say "GOOD DRIVER DISCOUNT: $150" and it's supposed to make you feel better.

Oddly, the policy has a "New Vehicle Discount." "Private passenger vehicles that are 3 years old or newer receive a discount. The discount percent decreases as the vehicle ages." I wonder why they offer this? A newer vehicle costs more to replace.

Insurers are really good at one thing and that's statistics. Their numbers apparently tell them that newer cars are driven more safely, which makes sense. They are probably also less likely to cause serious physical harm to the driver or others. They need to make sure the house always wins, so you can bet they have a fine grained understanding of the historical numbers and base their current pricing on it.

Another thing it could be is some government incentive to stimulate the sales of cars, a bit like how "green" vehicles are discounted or subsidised in a lot of places.

[NiHaoMike]

Besides, treating people differently is a minefield. It can only lead to tales of sorrow for a vast array of reasons. One example would be that it's inevitable that lower income people will be less capable of exercising in an organised manner, or buying healthy foods. They'll be punished financially for having less means. Another example would be that you'd need to grade all kinds of behaviour present and past. It means giving up a lot of privacy and having a detailed track record dating back for decades. And who will grade the behaviour and all the complex interactions between factors? Surely not not insurers? Or other institutions or organisations with an inevitable own agenda?

Hence the idea of taxing junk food to subsidize healthcare, so that those who eat excessive amounts of junk food end up paying more for healthcare. It only covers one aspect of a healthy/unhealthy lifestyle but it's one that's easy to implement. Or maybe it would work better to subsidize fruits and vegetables...

[Mr. Scram]

Hence the idea of taxing junk food to subsidize healthcare, so that those who eat excessive amounts of junk food end up paying more for healthcare. It only covers one aspect of a healthy/unhealthy lifestyle but it's one that's easy to implement. Or maybe it would work better to subsidize fruits and vegetables...

Junk food tends to be cheaper than healthy alternatives in the US. It'd boil down to taxing the poorest. If fair treatment is the goal, that doesn't seem to be it.

[NiHaoMike]

So maybe the idea of taxing junk food in order to subsidize healthy food for the poor would be the best.

[james_s]

It's not so much that junk food is cheaper overall, but junk food is the stuff that is resilient enough to sit around on store shelves in prepared form. If you have even the most basic cooking skills you can eat reasonably well for just a few dollars a day. I'm always shocked whenever I encounter someone who insists they "can't cook", and finds all sorts of excuses why. You don't have to be a master chef to prepare a decent meal, anyone with at least two brain cells can make a sandwich, bake a potato or boil pasta. When I was broke after buying my house, I practically lived for a while off tuna sandwiches using bread I made in my thrift store bread machine. It was less than $2 a day for 3 meals, and that was back in 2004 so it's not like I'm quoting 1960s prices.

[mtdoc]

When it come to blaming people for their poor health, I would put obesity near the bottom of the list. Obesity has a strong genetically determined component. Whether you accept the “Thrifty Gene” or the “Drifty Gene” hypothesis, evolution clearly favored the tendency of some to store any excess available calories as fat.

It doesn’t help that so much food industry resources are devoted to developing and promoting foods which trigger this behavioral and physiologic response. It’s no accident that “junk food” is so addictive and so unhealthy.

Smoking on the other hand is, at least initially, a choice one makes which has clear adverse health effects. Taxing of tobacco products and devoting resources to prevention and treatment of nicotine addiction can’t go far enough IMO.

[NiHaoMike]

Obesity is not the only problem junk food causes. Excessive refined sugar causes diabetes and many additives are thought to contribute to cancer. And the processed food industry is very unethical.
https://foodbabe.com/the-food-industry-needs-to-stop-treating-us-like-a-bunch-of-idiots/

[james_s]

As soon as someone quotes anything from foodbabe I immediately have trouble taking anything they say seriously. That woman is a self serving nitwit.

[NiHaoMike]

Only the ones involved in making and selling junk food would disagree on the additives being bad.

[james_s]

Which additives exactly? What specific harm does each of these additives cause? How do you know this? I would like some detail here, not simply "additives are bad!"

I recall she was one of those people going around stating that ingredients that have difficult to pronounce scientific names are unhealthy. An apple contains chemical compounds with difficult to pronounce scientific names, it's a meaningless metric.

I have no ties to the food industry whatsoever.

[Marco]

Trump has been hell bent on dismantling that and other protections but I have not really followed what the current state of things are there.

The federal individual mandate is ending, meaning more healthy people will chose old style off exchange insurance (pre-condition limited, capped payout) or no insurance. Which will probably make Obamacare completely unaffordable for anyone not getting it fully subsidized outside of states with their own individual mandate.

Which additives exactly?

It's hard to say, but we do know there's something in the environment causing massive increases in autism, auto-immune diseases, allergies and infertility. Processed food, pesticides, leaching plastic, blowing agents and vaccines are all prime suspects. Probably some synergistic effect of the lot of them.

[james_s]

It's hard to say, but we do know there's something in the environment causing massive increases in autism, auto-immune diseases, allergies and infertility. Processed food, pesticides, leaching plastic, blowing agents and vaccines are all prime suspects. Probably some synergistic effect of the lot of them.

Do we know this?

I don't know as much about some of these things as others, but looking at autism specifically we have seen a massive increase in *diagnosis* of autism and autistic spectrum disorders. Whether there is actually a significant increase in the occurrence of autism is difficult to say as historically many people now diagnosed as autistic would have simply been called retarded, weird, eccentric, etc. Quite a few well known scientists, inventors and engineers exhibited traits that today suggest autism. The fact that we didn't have a specific name for something doesn't mean it didn't exist at the time.

Now that's not to say that there isn't something, or as you suggest, a collection of things in the environment that are detrimental to our health, but it's important to not confuse an increase in diagnosis along with the fact that people on average are living much longer than they used to, exposing conditions that previously would have been masked by other causes of death, with an increase in occurrence.

[Mr. Scram]

Really, the vaccines and autism thing again?  Regardless, the alternative isn't as attractive.

[NiHaoMike]

I think the controversy with vaccines is that some of the newer ones haven't been adequately tested for safety. Of course, many end up generalizing that to say all vaccines are bad... I think the solution would be to have independent testing.

Massively cutting down on food additives shouldn't be too disagreeable, however. They serve no good for those consuming the product.

[T3sl4co1l]

newer ones haven't been adequately tested for safety.

Bullshit.

This line and a thousand equally weak lines are parroted by these imbeciles daily.  They aren't interested in the facts, they won't provide any support for their claims.  They certainly won't hear any facts that go against their belief.

If anything, the FDA (and similar organizations the world over) are too restrictive.  There have been several instances of treatments showing remarkable effect in trials, going through too many years too late for hundreds of victims.  [No, I don't have any particular examples handy.  Please, do take the time to research things yourself.]

But there have also been cases where treatments were pushed through trials too aggressively, or without enough oversight, and participants died avoidable deaths.

An interesting argument (for those that are willing to hear and understand arguments), is this: how much vaccination is too much?  No vaccine is perfect, and there will always be side effects, including extreme effects like death.  Likewise, at some point, herd immunity is high enough that we don't have to vaccinate any more than that.  Right?  Sounds perfectly reasonable.

As it turns out, there is such a threshold.  What is it?  It's 99.99something percent!  There is no single community on the planet which has vaccinated enough to cover all diseases to this level of protection!  It seems we cannot possibly vaccinate enough.  And this is the most devastating part of all, about the stupid anti-vaxxers: they willingly encourage people to become victims, to die of utterly preventable diseases, or to be crippled by lifelong effects (polio, anyone?).

I have no qualms about using epithets like imbecile, or stupid.  These adjectives are not slanderous.  They are simple statements of fact, rationally and morally justified.

Tim

[james_s]

The thing that baffles me most about the anti-vax thing is that what's her name, the ex Playboy model has so much clout, despite the fact that she has absolutely no background or education in medicine or science. There is a strange phenomenon that occasionally leads large numbers of people to stand behind someone as an authority on a matter for which they are utterly unqualified for. People are allowed to have opinions, but if you start stating something as fact then I expect you to have solid data to back it up. If it is contrary to what the overwhelming majority of people who are true experts on the matter are saying, then my standards for data countering this are that much higher.

The same is true of "foodbabe", absolutely no medical or scientific background, she's just an ordinary person with an opinion. The only thing that makes her any different than any other schmuck off the street is that she is (subjectively) an attractive woman. I guess people like hearing attractive people saying what they want to hear? I don't know but it's strange. It's closer to a religion than to science. She makes a ton of money by promoting her bullshit though, which ironically is one of the main arguments she uses to try to discredit anyone who speaks out against her. 

[Mr. Scram]

Maybe we need to take the vaccine discussion somewhere else. I don't think this is the right place for it.

[EEVblog]

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

Of course insurers all over the world are now trying to get everyone to drive around with a black box to get a discount.

I have not heard of such a thing before. It's not here in Australia that I am aware of.
Some companies even offer no claim bonus "for life" once you reach that level. But you have to stay with them of course.

[EEVblog]

Please stop the stuff about food additives, vaccines etc, this is not the place.

[BradC]

I have not heard of such a thing before. It's not here in Australia that I am aware of.

It is/was. The company was Insurancebox. Underwritten by QBE. They were advertising all over telly a year or so ago, but a quick look sees that they are currently not selling new policies. Didn't bother to fund out why.

[JPortici]

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

Of course insurers all over the world are now trying to get everyone to drive around with a black box to get a discount.

I have not heard of such a thing before. It's not here in Australia that I am aware of.
Some companies even offer no claim bonus "for life" once you reach that level. But you have to stay with them of course.

Here i got 20% discount for getting a black box, not bad.
They claim it's to reduce insurance frauds, expecially for weather events like hail. And they are not wrong.
Also helpful in case of an accident, position is recorded, phones are called.
Also works as an alarm, i can set up my parking area or safe area and get a call if the car goes outside of it.
Also i can find my car if i forget where i parked it.
And i'm not mandated to disclose the data in case of an accident.
And apparently they will be mandatory in a couple of years so better take advantage of it while i can.

oh, and km are recorded, also per risk area (highways and such) so if i make no accidents i get an even bigger reduction every year

[VinzC]

I'm also so thankful for the NHS here in Britain, where everyone contributes a little bit to make sure nobody has to face the terror of a bill like that and worrying that their 'insurance' might not pay.

Social healthcare FTW

Great news!
For at least 50% of the Americans, the blue marked text above already counts as 'communism' which must therefore be strictly combated. Never give away anything that could benefit others.

It's astounding so many people, uneducated, obviously, conflate solidarity with a political ideology, which they deemed despicable. That's the paradoxical reflection of stupidity, I guess.

I'm happy for Simone but... damn, the bill!

More shitty robots to sell to pay the fees...?

[NiHaoMike]

That doesn't really solve the problem of those living unhealthy increasing costs for those who do live healthy.

[Mr. Scram]

That doesn't really solve the problem of those living unhealthy increasing costs for those who do live healthy.

There's a fair amount of evidence that shows it's not. Healthy people get old and old people are very expensive from a healthcare perspective. Unhealthy people tend to die off more quickly, after a relatively modest amount of treatment. It's known that smokers are less expensive than non smokers. You can't really tax healthy living without running into moral issues.

Though I doubt you will change your stance, as this all has been pointed out a few times before.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html

[ajb]

There are demonstrated links between psychological stress and physical health outcomes, which means that things like poverty are doubly damaging to health--people who are in stressful socioeconomic circumstances are both more likely to be stuck with 'junk' food that does not promote health and be at higher risk for things like cardiovascular disease to begin with.  So adding economic pressure to them to eat healthy when they ALREADY lack the means to do so is just plain cruel.  Also remember that many of the poor in the US are already working--we have quite a high rate of working poor compared to much of Europe etc--and when you combine employment with the lack of effective public transportation with the demands of child care, etc, and widespread food deserts, access to healthy food options is limited not just by its purchase price but also by the logistical ability to acquire and prepare it.

Speaking of working, the US has a fairly bizarre system where health insurance is provided by your employer, and many employers play games with their employees to avoid having to provide insurance.  For instance, retailers who employ hourly workers, on top of having low wages to begin with, are often careful to keep their employees' weekly hours below the level where they'd be required to offer health insurance.  That not-quite-fulltime employment is often enough to disqualify the employee from a lot of public assistance, but not enough to provide secure livelihood, especially when they get stuck paying medical expenses out of pocket.  On top of that, if you had employer-provided insurance but lost your job, the cost of maintaining your employer-provided plan can be astronomical, and any lapse in coverage prior to Obamacare would allow future insurers to deny you coverage for all sorts of 'pre-existing conditions'.  The US approach to health care is fucked up in so many ways.

[VinzC]

The problem is how to hold individuals accountable for their own actions just like how it's done for car insurance.

No.

In my country *everyone* with a social security  (not exactly the right term but you get the idea) "subscription" — which is virtually every citizen — pays a small, regular participation fee for the collectivity, which serves as a buffer for those in need for medical care or assistance, e.g. medical surgery (just like with Simone) and interventions. Social security also intervenes in lowering the price to pay for med's. That's the typical use of social security: helping those in need for assistance. There are of course people who can't afford (and that's a shame) having a social security assistance but they're still a minority.

Keep in mind that solidarity (which is the initial model of social security) has nothing to do (bless that!) with holding people accountable for their actions. It's not the purpose of the system — heck, what's education for, anyway? Social security, at least in my country, is about letting everyone contribute to everyone's medical care.

Social security and insurances are different systems and have different goals. In my country social security is a public service, ruled by the government (I simplified). Insurances are [held by] *private* companies, with profit concerns (again, I simplified). Social security has been introduced by social(-ist) parties after the war to help workers get decent medical assistance as only the richer ones could afford medical care. It had to stop for a fair system where everyone gets a chance to receive medical assistance whenever needed. So, yes, "the richer help the poorer" and it's a good thing it exists.

The only ways I can think of to reward those who regularly exercise have some big problems of their own, but making those who eat too much junk food pay more is easy.

Look, I don't know why you're so keen focusing on food. Junk food is not the only reason people enter the hospital or need medicines. Medical care involves surgery, analysis, medicines, check-ups, visits to the doctors', cancer screening programme, campaigns for prevention of viral contamination, reducing med's costs... There are so many more I have to skip or it'll quickly become boring.

[Circlotron]

The medical "system" in the USA is a racket designed to maximize profits for insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and the large hospital corporations.   

The political system in the US has been poisoned by money from these interests so that a large number of Americans falsely believe that single payer healthcare as practiced in every other developed country is somehow inferior or more expensive (it is neither).

"the land of the free"...

[VinzC]

The medical "system" in the USA is a racket designed to maximize profits for insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and the large hospital corporations.   [...]

"the land of the free"...

... where freedom is just another business product to sell ;-) .

[EEVblog]

I said quit the junk food discussion. I have started deleting posts.

[EEVblog]

I have not heard of such a thing before. It's not here in Australia that I am aware of.

It is/was. The company was Insurancebox. Underwritten by QBE. They were advertising all over telly a year or so ago, but a quick look sees that they are currently not selling new policies. Didn't bother to fund out why.

Probably because no one was stupid enough to sign up for it.

[EEVblog]

I'm happy for Simone but... damn, the bill!
More shitty robots to sell to pay the fees...?

She was insured, so presumably pays either nothing or some much smaller nominal policy excess fee.
Here problem now might be getting insurance again. If I was her I wouldn't move from her current provider (who presumably still covers her), ever.

[james_s]

Even someone who is insured is not always off the hook. There are maximum coverage limits, and with a really expensive procedure you can burn through that and still be on the hook for many thousands of dollars. Hopefully she has good insurance.

[VinzC]

I'm happy for Simone but... damn, the bill!
More shitty robots to sell to pay the fees...?

She was insured, so presumably pays either nothing or some much smaller nominal policy excess fee.

Yup, I realized that after posting, watched her video again.

Here problem now might be getting insurance again. If I was her I wouldn't move from her current provider (who presumably still covers her), ever.

That's kind of freaky. I'm not too familiar with U.S. medical care (e.g. if they're private companies) compared to Belgium, where you don't have much incentive for leaving. That's indeed a... "strange" system.

[Gyro]

This thread prompted me to check my own tumor surgery bills. $233k seems a colossal sum of money. My own surgery, covered by the main not-for-profit insurer in the UK (paid for my employer), came out at about 15-20% of that (different decade, different exchange rate etc. so hard to be exact).

That included all CTs, MRIs including the probe guided imaging ones, separate burr-hole biopsy procedure and main surgery, two lots of surgeon's / anesthetist's / theater / histology bills etc.

Clearly there would have been differences due to degree of complexity (in Simone's case bone infiltration was involved whereas mine was purely brain infiltration, though higher grade) but they were both long procedures (she may or may not have had a separate biopsy procedure). It does give the impression of costs adjusting themselves to accommodate the available insurance cover expectations though.

EDIT: I would have received exactly the same treatment under the NHS for 'free' of course.

[ajb]

Here problem now might be getting insurance again. If I was her I wouldn't move from her current provider (who presumably still covers her), ever.

That's kind of freaky. I'm not too familiar with U.S. medical care (e.g. if they're private companies) compared to Belgium, where you don't have much incentive for leaving. That's indeed a... "strange" system.

Insurers as a rule are private, for-profit corporations here, which really explains quite a lot in and of itself.  I think there are a few not-for-profit insurers and self-insured organizations, but they are rare.  Insurance is usually provided through your employer, who often subsidizes it as part of your compensation, but as a result changing employers means changing insurance.  There are two primary public options here, Medicare (intended for retired folks) and Medicaid (intended for low income/disabled folks), but eligibility for those is inherently limited, and leaves big gaps where people don't make enough money to afford private coverage but make too much to qualify for public assistance.  Some states have opted to expand Medicaid, but many state governments are under right-wing control and have been fighting tooth and nail against any such "government overreach"  .  Many of the conservative politicians here are single-mindedly focused on shrinking government at any cost, including cutting all forms of public assistance and rolling back many of the health insurance reforms provided by the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.  It's shameful. 

Anyway, back to the pre-existing conditions thing, one of the ACA reforms was to prohibit the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, so in theory she's okay for now, but who knows how long that protection will last with the current government.  Personally, I've had a different insurance policy each of the last six years I've been at my current employer simply because whatever plan we've picked for a given year hasn't been offered the next year.  This is largely due to insurers attempting to cope with the tremendous uncertainty caused by the current government's constant attempts to undermine the ACA reforms, and since we're a small company we have zero bargaining power with insurance brokers.  We'll see what happens with the elections in the next few months, and again in 2020, but it's going to take a long time to fix what's wrong with the US, if it can even be done.

[VinzC]

Thanks for this detailed explanation, ajb. Sounds clearer now. I sympathize.

[VinzC]

Anyway, back to the pre-existing conditions thing, one of the ACA reforms was to prohibit the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions

i always find it funny. its like healthcare is a battery charger, and we the people are batteries. we keep on finding chargers to charge ourselves, so we are nearly almost always full. but here comes insurance providers who "takes charge" of all the chargers, but only want to "sell" charges to batteries that are 100% full and never needs it. 

I fail to see a relevant analogy there . While we're in the electricity domain, I'd rather see health insurance as a collaborative surge protection, aiming at preventing the [life] fuse from blowing up:

• a surge protection limits the peak current, health care limits health expenses
• it is collaborative because everyone contributes to one another's [circuit] protection
• just like surge protection it's silent for as long as there's no surge, health care is to intervene in [out-to-be] marginal circumstances.

At least by the definition of social security/health insurance.

[nctnico]

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

Of course insurers all over the world are now trying to get everyone to drive around with a black box to get a discount.

I have not heard of such a thing before. It's not here in Australia that I am aware of.

They tried that over here too (the black box) but I just read an article that it didn't catch on. The insurance premiums for such insurances are actually higher so there is nothing to gain compared to a regular car insurance.

[coppice]

Here that's called "no claim bonus". You get a discounted rate if you haven't had an accident for 5 years.

Of course insurers all over the world are now trying to get everyone to drive around with a black box to get a discount.

I have not heard of such a thing before. It's not here in Australia that I am aware of.

They tried that over here too (the black box) but I just read an article that it didn't catch on. The insurance premiums for such insurances are actually higher so there is nothing to gain compared to a regular car insurance.

In the UK the main focus of those black boxes seems to be teenage drivers. Teenagers always had really high insurance premiums, but these days the prices are eye watering. They do appear somewhat lower if you accept a black box in your car.

[Mr. Scram]

It's not hard to guess why it's cheaper. They avoid having to pay out in a number of cases, possibly on technicalities. Customers think they have cheap insurance without realising it's a Trojan horse that might cost them. People still don't understand that insurance companies don't exist to give you money. They exist because they don't give people money. They'll try avoid paying up at any cost and a black box gives them a lot more to work with.

Of course, most idiots think they are above average drivers so they feel safe.

[ruffy91]

The black box you can get here (switzerland) is just an accelerometer and CAN bus sniffer. In case of an accident you get the last few meters of data.
When deciding who's to blame you are allowed to provide this data to the court. (you don't have to but if the other perty has a blackbox and you refuse to give tha data it's already clear who caused the accident).

The insurance does incentive black boxes so they can better focus on calculating risks instead of paying top lawyers to fend off paying accidents where "their" drivers are not to blame.

[Marco]

Many of the conservative politicians here are single-mindedly focused on shrinking government at any cost, including cutting all forms of public assistance and rolling back many of the health insurance reforms provided by the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.  It's shameful.

I find the concept of insurance for public healthcare (and pensions) disingenuous and stupid. It's not an insurance scheme, it's a ridiculously complex welfare scheme. A welfare scheme which because it only subsidizes the lower classes is much less progressive than most taxation.

Obamacare was imploding before Trump pulled the trigger, the conservatives restricted how fast the penalties could grow and healthy people were simply taking the penalty. Be glad for Trump killing it, maybe democrats can make less of a mess of it next time around. IMO either you go single payer, or you just get government out of it entirely except for medicare/medicaid. The wishy washy in between shit (which my country also does) is a big waste of money and FU to the middle class.

[Mr. Scram]

I find the concept of insurance for public healthcare (and pensions) disingenuous and stupid. It's not an insurance scheme, it's a ridiculously complex welfare scheme. A welfare scheme which because it only subsidizes the lower classes is much less progressive than most taxation.

Obamacare was imploding before Trump pulled the trigger, the conservatives restricted how fast the penalties could grow and healthy people were simply taking the penalty. Be glad for Trump killing it, maybe democrats can make less of a mess of it next time around. IMO either you go single payer, or you just get government out of it entirely except for medicare/medicaid. The wishy washy in between shit (which my country also does) is a big waste of money and FU to the middle class.

That half assed plan it ended up being is in large part due to the political polarization in the US and either side outright opposing anything that's from "the other side", regardless of what that actually entails. It's been nearly impossible to deploy a well thought out and coherent plan for years, not to mention it's a very complicated matter to begin with. That's well into politics though, so not for these forums.

[james_s]

The polarization is a huge problem and honestly I don't know how it could ever be fixed. People exist in their own little online echo chamber, filtering out anyone with a different perspective and it's easy to start to believe that one's own views and opinions are shared by the minority and that anyone else is a fringe idiot. There is an attitude that "their" team has all the answers and the other team caused all the problems, it's no wonder people can't compromise. The ability to agree to disagree is a dying art. Being somewhere in the middle I find both sides frustrating, and I get the flak from both sides. The conservatives think I'm a liberal and the liberals think I'm a conservative. I think I'm pragmatic and sensible and can usually see both points of view to at least some degree.