So now we call you Dr. Derp? You know nothing about my health nor are you very informed on kidney stones.
I am well acquainted with kidney stones, having passed two this past March. But that was the first time I ever had them in all my 38 years on this earth. Since passing them, I haven't had to go back to the doctor. Now, contrast that with someone diagnosed with schizophrenia who needs constant medication and psychiatric care to manage the condition.
That's why kidney stones are not a chronic condition. They are a
pre-existing condition, but not a chronic one. There is a difference.
So having kidney stones every month or two is not chronic? It is called cystinuria. There are people that get stones daily. They are given morphine vials to help them cope with pain. You might want to read and learn before you spout stupid nonsense.
You gotta be ******* kidding me. You're saying you get kidney stones every month? How long has this been going on? Why not just get your gall bladder removed? And you didn't say
you got kidney stones daily. You made it sound like you get them all the time, but again, your story starts wavering and changing as we get deeper into its validity. Now, Cystinuria is a chronic condition, but you don't have that condition, do you? You just get kidney stones every now and then, not daily. Unless you're going to pretend you never said that and that you suffer from Cystinuria which begs the question; if you do suffer from it, how come you've only gone to the doctor once to pay for surgery? You never said you are in constant care with your doctor. All you said was that you negotiated with him
for the surgery that you claim cost $4,800 w/o insurance, and $20,000 w/ insurance.
This is what I'm talking about when I say I don't believe you. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. It all sounds made up, and off the top of your head, then you redefine the parameters as it suits you. You, personally, do not suffer from Cystinuria. You didn't make that claim before, so you can't make it now. You getting kidney stones every now and then is not the same thing as getting them daily, which you never said happened to you. You're full of shit, aren't you? My BS detector is going off the charts.
I also have diabetes, which I have controlled by diet, high protein, low carbs and virtually no sugar. My glucose levels have been great for quite awhile.
So, of course, that isn't what controls diabetes. You didn't say what
kind of diabetes you have because there are different kinds and require different treatments. Do you require regular insulin shots? Do you not? You see how skeptical I am because everything you say about yourself is always vague and general, with no specifics. So why should I believe you???? According to the
American Diabetes Association, the average diabetic costs about $8K a year to treat. That's independent of insurance. That's just the base cost. So what does that $8K a year entail? Do you even know? No. Because you just made this shit up to help bolster your discredited argument.
Again, I had catastrophic insurance, it worked well for me. It might not work well for others. I hate doctors and only go when I have to. I'd rather work on solutions on my own and not take medications that have long term side effects. That is just me.
So you say you only go to the doctor "when you have to", which would mean your kidney stones are not a chronic condition, but rather an ad-hoc one you are trying to misrepresent as Cystinuia. I've had kidney stones too. I don't have Cystinuia. Furthermore, someone with Cystinuria wouldn't get a catastrophic plan because of the lifetime caps all catastrophic plans have. Pre-ACA, that was universally the case. There was no such thing as a catastrophic plan that didn't have a lifetime cap. So something about your story doesn't add up. You have a chronic condition, yet you claim to only go to the doctor "when you have to"...as opposed to...going when you don't? Huh?
f I thought single payer would drop the cost and save anyone money, I would be for it however with the government that won't happen, even if it was cheaper the government would never lower the tax, they would waste it somewhere else.
Well, this isn't a question of belief, it's a matter of accepting facts. Single payer reduces health care costs because there no longer exists a profit motive for the insurance companies. You said yourself administrative costs are why your $4,800 surgery would have cost $20,000 with insurance (a dubious claim to be sure, but whatever, I'll let it slide). Do you think those costs are the same across every type of insurance plan? What if there was only one insurance plan everyone was on...wouldn't that cut down on all the administration necessary to process claims from dozens, hundreds of different insurers.
It's no coincidence that single payer nations spend half as much as we do per patient. In this country, we have entire floors of hospitals dedicated to administration of claims. The reason is because of the myriad different insurers that there are and the administrative support necessary to process their claims. Whereas in single payer nations, that job is done by one -maybe two people- in one room. Wouldn't cutting the number of payors down to one streamline the administration?
Again,
here is the budget from HHS for Medicare, notice how administration makes up 1%?
And
here is the budget from Aetna, notice how administration makes up 17%?
So which is less? 1% or 17%? What is more efficient, a single payor or multiple payors? Who has the bargaining power when there are more payors than providers? Who has the bargaining power then there are more providers than payors?
There is no other way to lower health care costs other than having a single entity do the administration of processing reimbursements.
