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 -
Whelp, I just got screwed again by the lack of price transparency in the American Healthcare System. feelsbad.man.jpg
Thankfully, it's not a huge dollar figure, but it's the sheer stupidity of clinging to price opacity, which inevitably finds some way to reach into my pocket and pull out more money, that annoys me.
It was not a situation where the provider didn't have the necessary information to understand why the price ended up being what it was. When I called them to ask WTH, it took all of three minutes for them to just go through the steps of verifying the process and then explaining it to me. But that's three minutes that they should have spent going through the steps in order to give me a price before they performed the service, rather than blindsiding me with a bill after the fact.
Yes, yes, I know, they don't want to spend three minutes per patient; that adds up! And of course they don't want to; it's not only their time being spent; it's not in any way in their favor to spend those three minutes. It's my pocket that it comes out of, after all.
Moreover, it was a situation where, had they spent the three minutes and we could have then had a conversation about the price, in hindsight, I am extremely confident about how I would have made a different choice as to the way that I arranged the services that I would have liked to acquire. I literally, actually, could have personally made a different choice if I had had price information, and it's a choice that I would have preferred in terms of my personal cost/benefit analysis.
Of course, it must be remarked on that had I had this information and had I made the choice that I would have preferred, the provider would have made slightly less money. I don't think they were doing this on purpose; it's just convenient for them to not spend three minutes and also probably make more money. They just have near zero incentive to even consider doing things in a way that may be in my own interest. The only danger that they run is that if folks like me eventually get pissed off enough at these shenanigans, we'll either search desperately for a different provider who will bother spending three minutes or simply get so fed up with the constant nonsense that we just eschew that sort of service altogether. Man, it's tempting to do that, because it's just... so... constant a problem. I'm already pretty cynical for how they're going to find a way to screw me over, and apparently even that was not enough cynicism.
The snafu did, in a minor way, relate to the way the insurance policy is written. I mention this only because I would like to hold open at least some amount of plausible blame for them (it's really kind of hard to in this particular situation, but I'll mention it anyway), but the provider legitimately had 100% of the information necessary to provide me an actual price and discuss tradeoffs/courses of action prior to services being rendered. They just didn't bother.
This feeling really makes me sympathize with all the people who are so outraged. I'm sure there are tons and tons of stories where the insurance company is more to blame, too, so I sympathize with those folks feeling gut anger at them, too. It's just monumentally infuriating to have them over and over again find endless ways to screw you over and see that it's not even malevolence. It's pure apathy toward your interests as a patient combined with an addiction to doing everything possible to remain price opaque.
It’s one of the worst things about this country.
Not knowing the cost should be illegal.
Tear down the entire economy to cull the health insurance industry - it’s one of many things, but imo the most important, that needs to be ripped apart and changed in a manner beneficial to most Americans.
Consider the class of citizen who blows all of their disposable income on, say, online sports betting. The powers that be have determined that it is unacceptable to put these people in the position of making their own cost-beneft decisions about individual health interventions.
Regulation as a collective punishment on the existence of stupid people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Random thought: just make it legal for veterinarians to treat consenting humans. Give them immunity for malpractice for anything below gross negligence -- if you want to get a million dollar payout by convincing a jury that a doctor treated you wrong, you should have gone to a hooman hospital. As a bonus, vets are a lot less squeamish about MAID.
Alternatively, disallow health providers from price discriminating. If you bill one insurer X$ for a head CT, you better not charge any other patients more for the same procedure.
Wait, that's not already illegal? How are they sidestepping the whole disparate impact discrimination thing.
Price discrimination is an economic term that means charge the people who NEED something the most and charge people who are barely willing to buy this the least and have some way of preventing the second group from selling their thing to the first.
Well, that's not quite true - price discrimination really just means being able to charge different people different rates. And, despite the name, it can actually be a very good thing. The people at the front of the aircraft buying absurdly priced business/first-class tickets are helping to subsidize your flight. They're getting a little more comfort than you, but you're both getting the key thing (travel). Or free-to-play games - yes, some are predatory, but there are some absolutely amazing games you can play without spending a cent, because they're supported entirely by whales.
More options
Context Copy link
It can also include charging everyone the maximum they are able to pay. And it can be passed off as "we meet people where they are and offer discounts for low-income patients," which sounds really nice (and may be in some cases), but can in practice take the form of "charging everyone as much as they can afford". This seems to also happen with college tuition: "it costs a million dollars a year to attend, but we'll be nice and settle for the difference between your parents' paychecks and the federal poverty line".
I don't have a firm answer for where I think the ethical line should be on income-based discounts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s discriminating on ability to pay, which isn’t a protected characteristic.
“We’ll charge him more because he’s white” is illegal. “We’ll charge him more because he has good insurance” is, uh. Complicated.
Isn't the point of disparate impact that it's an end-run around needing evidence of explicit discrimination?
"we'll charge him more because he's white" is explicit discrimination.
"We'll charge him more because he has good insurance, which is statistically correlated with whiteness" is disparate impact.
I believe the current administration has started moving against regulatory disparate impact standards generally, but even where it has applied, it's pretty consistently only in specific directions.
More options
Context Copy link
If they're doing end-runs I don't see why you'd be surprised that the whole "equal protection" bit has clear caveats on who gets discriminated against. The logic is there to hunt down racists who got slightly smarter after the end of segregation after all.
In other countries (Canada) they just make this clear but people have to be smarter in America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
Anti-White (and anti-Asian, and Anti-Male) discrimination is de-facto legal, and sometimes mandated. See Students for Fair Admissions as another example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's not a "bonus" that's fucked up.
Vets have a staggeringly high suicidal rate which is atleast partly due to the amount of euthanasia that their jobs tend to involve. I've got veterinary friends and the stories they tell are quite depressing.
Don't they know they can just subcontract that part of the job out to an old farmer?
More options
Context Copy link
It's one of those horrible ironies that you get into the job because you love animals and then you have to keep killing them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This idea is absurd and I love it even though I can't imagine what second and third-order effects it would have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To steel-man the idea that "knowing the cost" is always possible, I'm not sure it'd be reasonable to expect my (car) mechanic to define payment terms for a fix before even popping the hood. There are enough potential complications in complex procedures (emergency cesarean sections in childbirth, for example) that probably can't be trivially bundled up front.
That said, most of those cases are ones that don't really seem like they get much benefit from market-based economics either. But presumably somebody has to shoulder the cost of the not-completely-expected procedures that are found to be necessary: I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the idea of single payer for this specific sort of thing, but haven't thought through all the bounds I'd apply there.
In India it is possible to know the cost. The hospital knows that some procedures have complications and prices that in. If the 4/5 patients cost 75k and 1/5 costs 2 lakh, they charge all of them a flat 1 lakh. You pay 1 lakh before the procedure and your obligation is done.
This is possible. The US having a different situation is a choice the US made.
That's just insurance socialism with
extrafewer steps, right? The American public would never accept it. "Why should I, with my beautiful fast clotting blood and strong infection resistance, pay more for a procedure that will barely keep me in a bed for one night?"More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The question isn't really do we know the cost, it is who carries the risk that the cost turns out to be higher (or lower) than expected. There are lots of situations where we are unsure about the cost going into a transaction, and the risk has to be distributed. Right now we operate on the system that the Hospital takes on only the risk that they don't get paid, while an "honest" patient takes on all the risk. We could quite easily choose to distribute that risk differently.
More options
Context Copy link
I know healthcare is complex, much more so than wrenching, but the idea that we don't know how to price things isn't true. There are codes for all this stuff, there's plenty of data on what a procedure involves (in terms of consumables/times/equipment) that can be used to blend it.
Any healthcare provider already does all of this for P&L reporting, care plans, etc. but they have to hide what they know to negotiate with insurers and the government.
They don't have to hide the terms of the agreement that they signed with said insurers. The insurers already have this! They both signed the agreement!
Sure, they can continue hiding their internal costs, but those were never something that the patient cared about anyway. The patient cares about what they're going to get billed, which is a number in an agreement that both the provider and the insurance company have.
In the auto mechanic example, this is like saying that the shop owner hides how he compensates his employees, pays for consumables/times/equipment/etc. That's all perfectly fine. I don't care to know that. Just tell me what number you're planning on putting on my bill.
You're misunderstanding. The medical complex knows how much treatment costs, what margins are, all of it.
An insurer - if they had that information - would use it for more leverage when negotiating their payment agreements. They can put together something like it when they're big enough to compare costs across multiple systems, but that's about it.
You're misunderstanding. No one is asking for their internal treatment costs/margins/etc. They keep that hidden. Then they sign an agreement. That agreement has numbers in it. Different numbers from their internal treatment costs/margins/etc. Those numbers are known to both parties. They both signed a document with those numbers in it! They are not keeping those numbers hidden. Those numbers are the ones that they can give to patients.
Yeah seems like we're talking past each other here. I'm not disputing that at all. There's not a good reason to hide these costs from consumers.
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
Typically, with the car mechanic, the deal is that you agree on a certain amount for diagnosing, and perhaps give them a certain budget for fixing stuff. If things get more expensive, they call you so you can make an informed decision.
Also, I do not see the benefit of making people pay the actual costs of their procedure instead of the expected costs as estimated beforehand.
So, if you want to find a hospital to give birth, different hospitals could make you offers based on your health conditions and date. If they estimate that there is a 10% probability that you will need an emergency C-section, they can just add 10% of the cost of one to the offer.
This would also align incentives way better, because the hospital would only do emergency C-sections if otherwise they would run into malpractice territory. By contrast, if the hospital can just bill the additional costs to the patient, their incentives are to to an 'emergency' C-section at the first sign of troubles and then make the poor schmuck pay for it. 99% of patients will not litigate the overenthusiastic indication, and the ones that do will be dirt cheap to settle because apart from the costs of the operation, there is little in the way of damages. A scar over your abdomen might be worth a few thousand dollars, but that is basically nothing compared to a child which was oxygen deprived during birth.
Indeed, HVAC works the same way- there's an NTE amount, you have $1k(or something) to find or fix the problem. If the labor and parts amount to more than that you submit a quote. If the quote is wrong you submit another one(and the customer is very irritated, but commercial HVAC techs Are Not Known For Their Customer Service anyways). Either way, customers have an approximation.
Now the human body is more complex than air conditioners but it seems like doctors could do the same thing?
More options
Context Copy link
This seems like one of the better ways of handling it, although it does demand that healthcare providers become sufficiently actuarially competent to properly forecast costs as part of their operations: maybe not great for small-time practices at a time when lots are getting bought up by larger networks as it is. For better or worse, many hospitals already have to do things like that to handle EMTALA and the fact that they can't actually expect all their patients to, you know, pay.
At my job, we write quotes by... giving a list of parts and the amount of time it'll take to install them to an admin, who tabulates the total cost. Healthcare's many problems do not include a shortage of admins.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah but this stuff always runs into the brick wall of chronic conditions and lifetime disability. Even in a universe where disability cover was confined to just exceedingly obvious issues the costs can snowball ridiculously
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would be over the moon thrilled if doctors were as transparent as auto mechanics. They tell you what they're planning on doing, they give you a (usually pretty good) estimated price, and then if they get in there and find something that's going to change their plan/cost, they tell you, give a revised estimate, and get your approval before proceeding.
No one is asking for doctors to be clairvoyant. Just that they do basic communication of what they know, when they know, to whatever extent possible.
Obviously, there could be cases where a patient is under anesthesia, they find something genuinely unexpected, whatever. I think a simple rule for this is to just follow normal informed consent principles. If you'd be comfortable proceeding without getting specific informed consent for the medical costs/benefits, then you probably don't need to give them a price, either. But to use an example based on what one of the doctors here said before, he said that they might know that a surgery typically costs $X, but 1% of the time there's a thing that makes it cost $[Stupid]x[X]. Simple: you know this, so just communicate it to the patient. Sure, it's probably not going to change much in that particular case, but at least they've gotten a heads up that there's about a 1% chance that they'll wake up on the hook for their entire OOPM. [EDIT: I'm pretty sure this is concordant with medical informed consent procedures. If you know there's a 1% chance that there will be a major shift in what you're going to do in a surgery, I'm pretty sure you're kinda supposed to tell the patient, "Hey, so this is a small chance, but it is known to be about a 1% chance."]
It's honestly just basic human decency in business practice.
If you know the rate of the complication and the cost change then a simple financial insurance product could normalize that cost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but your car mechanic won't rebuild your transmission without letting you know that it's not covered by your insurance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link