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 -
If people won't and can't use the prices, how exactly do we get the situation in the OP where the NYT writers specifically wanted and could have used price information?
I mean I think the article is accidentally a great example - they didn't actually need to know and numbers, it got covered, no?
They did end up running around sweating because the insurance company decided to be an asshole, which is what they do. Physicians complain about prior auth abuse all the time, and United is one of the worst. Basically they just try and refuse enough and slow things down enough that at times patients and doctors will give up and go with sub optimal management.
Quality price transparency doesn't help in those sort of situations and will likely help insurance company's beat on health systems.
It's also extremely expensive, you'd have to hire a lot more staff, and since people always expect physicians to know these things you'd probably have to cut clinical supply.
You could certainly change the system via regulation but that has its own costs and there are easier targets to reduce patient angst like prior auth reform.
For a more paternalistic and therefore likely less popular take - the system is incredibly complicated and even people who are subject matter experts in it get shit wrong quite a bit. Injecting patients into the mix would just add to the confusion, expense, and angst.
I am sad that you won't see this, because I am genuinely curious to find out what you mean by this. Like, it could mean anything. We could reform it in a way that is even pretty painful for insurers. Could make it basically mandatory for many of the things (at least anything that has some minimal level of denials happening), and require insurers to respond within certain timelines, electronically or whatever. Then, you'd have less uncertainty about what they'll want to do, and you'll have good information to give to your patients. I kiiiinda think that this isn't what you have in mind, and yeah, am just super curious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link