This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
PCPs have sick visits, you establish with a PCP and they'll schedule you urgently if something needs to be managed urgently, if you have an established relationship with a PCP they'll know how reliably you are and will do somethings over the phone. This is how it is supposed to work, Urgent Cares exist because people these days refuse to use the system how its designed (and it's because of incentives, I get it and have committed this crime also) but they aren't really designed for the care people ask of them.
Additionally, physician pay has decreased year after year for longer than the majority of the people in this forum have been alive. This has a number of important effects one of which is: most of the shit that annoys you most about doctors is not their fault, they are required to do it because they aren't in charge anymore (most people in most specialties are employed now and not in independent private practice).
-Can't do something simple over the phone has to be an appointment? It's because that doctor's employer requires it so they can bill.
-Appointment short and unrewarding? It's because that is how the employer wants appointments scheduled.
-Doctor pays mostly attention to the computer? It's because there is no admin time and if he wants to go home before 8pm he's gotta start charting in the room.
-Doctor asks you annoying repetitive questions? Someone has mandated they ask them in order to bill or satisfy regulatory requirements or some other annoying thing. Or some incompetent front desk staff person said you were a smoker or a drinker or are missing your appendix and it requires forms in triplicate to remove from your chart.
Doctors no longer work for themselves and are now required by law and by their employer to do things that annoy the hell out of patients and we hate it but its not our fault please dont blame us thank you.
Sounds like a design problem.
Sounds like a design problem.
Sounds like a design problem. I'm not blaming them, definitely not individual doctors.
But doctors are theoretically in the best position to raise the issue and demand or impart adjustments. Seems like there's a large... incentive problem, who profits from keeping things as they are, and why don't they suffer consequences for failure?
Another Eliezer Yudkowsky tweet that lives rent free in my head on top of the other one is his almost certainly correct argument that completely removing all regulations currently effecting the healthcare industry would create immediate improvements compared to the status quo.
So, hope that Trump takes a chainsaw to the healthcare regs?
He also has interesting ideas on addressing the status quo.
It's designed well, people just refuse to use it correctly and we can't force them. No amount of civil engineering is going to make up for disaffected young males who insist on driving around at 40 miles over the speed limit.
Society has mostly decided we can't force patients to use the systems correctly or take care of themselves. And I'm okay with that. Although this was a big part of what the ACA was about - health insurance only really works if everyone has it so you needed to force people to get.
I'm not saying all the regulations are good, many are emphatically not - physician salaries have been dropping for forever, so what's causing increased costs? Well a bunch of it is admin and other horseshit like that.
Think about how complex some of this system is, a huge percentage of costs, maybe even worth as much of 50% of doctors salaries, is healthcare workers and systems protecting themselves from getting sued. You want to drop healthcare costs and make access easier? Great make it so we can't get sued. I promise you that you will mostly get better quality care faster and for cheaper. But no, people don't want that, they want to be able to sue.
So healthcare is more expensive.
So much of what goes on is like that.
"People refuse to use it correctly" sure looks like bad design from the outside.
Ever heard of "Desire paths?". You can have a beautifully engineered and designed walkway, and people will still walk through the dirt if that makes more sense to them.
Similarly, you can try to get people to use their PCP as the doorway... but if that's too complex or annoying of a process they'll skip that and use urgent care.
Maybe just maybe there's a way that accommodates people's preferences.
If you want us to redesign the system you need to sacrifice something else, most likely increased paternalism - is that what you want?
There are no penalties for misusing the system now, inducing penalties for bad behavior is the primary way we correct things and make systems function.
Or do you want Urgent Care to be staffed by ED and FM? That would certainly address the issue but would dramatically increase expense.
Look, all I want is to be able to buy health insurance that covers only catastrophic injuries and the attendant recovery. I want to be able to pay my doctor in cash for any other services, and be able to have medical care for any minor but debilitating injuries readily available on demand. Why is that practically impossible under the current system?
As it stands, with health insurance tied to employment, I can lose access to a doctor if I switch jobs or the my employer switches insurance plans, and I can't actually be sure how much anything costs because there's no price transparency.
So I'm 'forced' into getting health insurance that covers every little thing, which most studies show doesn't actually improve outcomes for people.
I would hesitate to use a study from that far back because the American health landscape is so different now (in terms of population health, costs, and availability of interventions). Diabetes alone could fuck up the results (and almost certainly does).
I mean what you are asking for is available. Catastrophic plans are available on the marketplace and plenty of family practice doctors offer a practice sort of what you are suggesting. It is expensive but that's primarily because this model is a thing of independent practice which is dying outside of high tax brackets. Doctors aren't in charge when they are employed so they have to do what the employer says. Although my PCP is boring and they can do that (minus cash pay).
Ultimately nearly everything most people hate about healthcare is stuff that doctors don't have any control over and also hate, but we get blamed and people want to make our lives more miserable. It is very frustrating.
Do you have a more recent study to cite because every factor that's changed since that one was published would have made the problem worse. Fewer doctors per capita, more regs, Obamacare, and an older, sicker population.
What's the current status of the situation, according to your research?
I mean it's like comparing ships from the age of sail to modern battleships. Do they both suck and are too expensive? Quite possibly.
Are they totally different things? Also true.
The population is completely different in terms of age and health. What we can do for patients is also totally different - more patients are on more medications that are more effective.
If a given type of health plan increases the chance that patients actually take their diabetes medication that alone will have a radical impact on outcomes.
Those things didn't exist 40 years ago. Nor did the diabetes rates...
Apple to oranges, maybe the conclusion is the same, but still apples to oranges.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This may be nonresponsive and a tangent to your guys' dialogue, which was fun to read, but thought I would add it since I looked some of this stuff up.
Interesting! I was sure this had been banned and it looks like it pretty much was banned. You have to qualify for an exemption to even be eligible (<30 or poor enough to likely qualify for near total subsidy of another plan anyway) and also still covers the minimum requirements under the ACA like some preventative care and pregnancy.
This is a far cry from what "catastrophic" plans were not even 10 years ago. I got a grandfathered catastrophic plan from my health insurer when I graduated school. My max out-of-pocket was $5,000 and I paid $67 a mo and that included a sort of pre-purchase plan for eye and dental for another $20 or so. That plan kept getting enforcement waivers under Obamacare until it was finally banned as a parting gift of the Obama administration to the next one.
My "catastrophic plan" was better than a current bronze plan except the bronze plan covers a bunch of things I'll never need, and the current "catastrophic plan" now also costs over 6X+ ($420 was the quote I just got using the same age I was in the catastrophic plan) what my grandfathered, ACA noncompliant catastrophic plan, and the max out-of-pocket is now >30% higher than the inflation adjusted max-out-of-pocket. The current bronze plan quote is almost 10X what I paid for a catastrophic plan, the deductible is ~30% cheaper than the inflation adjusted max-out-pocket, and the out-of-pocket max is also >30% higher.
Wow! Hard to think this was in the medical wild west of yesteryear, 2016.
Huh, interesting - definitely missed how much things have changed on this front, thank you for the update.
I don't support catastrophic plans anyway so it makes sense, yeah some of it is the healthy need to subsidize the sick, but also people struggle to understand if they are healthy or sick, and how quickly that can change and so on.
The young always think they are invincible and then you get diabetes and sit on it unmanaged for a decade and end up with a heart attack and bilateral knee amputations or no kidneys.
Preventative care saves people and money in the long run and is cheap as hell but people will refuse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link