To be appalled at people dying in the USA because of the cost of insulin

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

A 27yo man in Virginia, who had type 1 diabetes, died last month because he couldn't afford to pay for the insulin that he needed to keep him alive and healthy.

Up to the age of 25, he was covered on his step-father's medical insurance, but once he turned 26, he was on his own. He was in a low-paying job which didn't come with adequate health insurance, so he saw no alternative but to buy the much less effective (and much less suitable for his needs) cheap variant over-the-counter at Walmart and then ration it to eke it out as much as he could.

I saw a report today suggesting that this is far from the norm. One family has a child whose insulin costs them £1,200 a month. It's their biggest single family outgoing and they sometimes have to sit in the dark or the mother go without food herself to be able to afford it. Of course, as he grows, he will be needing to eat more food and therefore need more insulin. Whatever would the family do if they had another child who developed T1D?

At best, it seems that ordinary people can find themselves very limited in their job/career choices and will often have to take any job based on what insurance cover it comes with, rather than one based on their skills, abilities, qualifications, experience, interests etc. At worst, the poorest, most vulnerable and/or least educated will not be able to get into any job that comes with the cover they or their families need.

It's much, much cheaper in Canada, so Americans who live anywhere near the northern border travel over and stock up there whenever they're able to; but the USA is a huge country, so this will not be a feasible option for the vast majority.

We see and hear all of the heartbreaking reports and appeals from poor countries in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, but THE USA?!?!

I know our NHS is far from perfect, but we have an immense amount to be grateful for.

How do American MNers manage to deal with this; or indeed, people from anywhere without an NHS or similar public set-up? Are these the full, true facts? Are people in the richest country on Earth really just tossed into the trash so easily and left to die for getting ill?

Another Brit in the US, we pay $600 a month for the 3 of us, insurance is provided by DH’s company. Our deductible is $3600 a year.

I gave birth in in the US, so I paid $3600, and that was it. However my birth experience was amazing and the treatment I received was perfect.

I've often thought that it explains why so many Americans appear to believe in a god – because the state isn't going to help you when you get into trouble.

I've wondered that about church attendance,when Oprah was on they featured churches who had rallied round to help parishioners having a hard time due to ill health or a home falling down.

@GeorgiaGirl52 I’m not sure what you think a health visitor is, but it’s basically a nurse. Health visitors specialise in child development 0-5 and postpartum healthcare - and, yes, for the first weeks after birth they come to you, but as soon as you’re reliably vertical you go to them.

Do tell me what the media in the US says they are, I’d be fascinated!

because the state isn't going to help you when you get into trouble.

A lot of people here really don’t want state involvement in their lives.

I showed friends here the Sid the slug NHS adverts and they were astounded and confused, they couldn’t understand why people were happy having a government treat them like children

People don't want state involvement in their lives
but they drive on roads funded by by the state, send their children to schools funded by the state, use emergency services funded by the state
The state is a mechanism for pooling resources to fund collective projects for the good of society as a whole.
Healthcare are isn't just something that benefits the individual it benefits society as a whole, if people are just left to rot and die, if there is no safety net to help people who fall so far down that they can't get back up on their own then society as a whole is degraded.
The USA is rich enough to afford to care for everyone if only resources were distributed fairly and sensibly

I showed friends here the Sid the slug NHS adverts and they were astounded and confused, they couldn’t understand why people were happy having a government treat them like children

Er, because its better than dying or losing your home through bankruptcy?

No one is forced to use the NHS, you can either go private or opt out of having any medical treatment at all if you'd prefer. It's there as an option, although you'd be pretty bloody stupid to turn down free medical care if you have insufficient funds for private treatment and care about your health.

anyone with a pet with chronic condition knows how dear tests and meds are, without NHS that could be you too. Trumps answer to UK pension crisis would be to have poor people die young to leave more in the pot for the rich

Lots of interesting posts since I last logged in.

@bombomboobah you have probably asked the right questions in the last post even if you are unlikely to get an answer that makes sense. Because the underlying philosophy between the US and UK is just so fundamentally different.

Americans just really have an ingrained distrust and wariness for our federal government which is why our system is set up with states rights and all of that. It is also just really hard to grasp how different parts of the country are from each other. Things that work in one part fail miserably in others.

There was a lot of discussion about HV. They don’t exist here and I suspect wouldn’t be very popular. We, in general, don’t want government entities in our houses. I’ve noticed that earlier in this thread someone made the comment that if you didn’t want a HV in, then surely you were hiding something. That is the exact reason we don’t want it. We don’t want to be presumed guilty.

I’m fascinated when I read here about the HV and if someone asks ‘do I have to let them in’ there are always responses along the lines of...well if you have nothing to hide why wouldn’t you let them in? That is a truly scary statement to many Americans.

I find it interesting that there is a current push in the US for gov’t run health care from the side that currently doesn’t like, want, or agree with the current administration. I find myself wondering who they think will be making the decisions on what procedures are covered/offered and which ones aren’t.

I’ve been asked why I’m ok with giving that control to my employer or my insurance company? The answer is simple. For them what is offered/covered comes down to business decision without any agenda. My employer wants happy healthy employees to make them a profit. It’s in their best interest to offer a competitive package to entice and retain me. The insurance company wants to keep my employer happy so they are going to by and large live up to their offerings and contract.

I don’t trust my gov’t to not not use my health care as a way to control me. How do I know that we won’t end up with an ultra religious control who decides that contraception and abortion should be not covered. How do I know that an crunchy granola movement won’t come into office and decide that vaccines aren’t going to offered.

My employer and insurance company aren’t interested in morality, and if they are (as I stated there are some religious exceptions) I can choose to work somewhere else or purchase my health insurance privately.

Eep...that got a little longer than I anticipated but I guess it’s hard to sum up such a big topic in a short post.

saltines re your question about my cousin's family

Their savings were well over 50k, so they could have ridden out the 6 months loss of income much more easily
They didn't have the additional 100k for medical expenses; ntbo 50k loss is much easier to haul back than 150k
AND

• the hospital took out a lien ( I think that's the word ?) on their house before my cousin could get treatment

So her DH was restricted in the geographical area to look for jobs, because if they sold up, the hospital would have immediately grabbed their 100k from the proceeds

Just imagine a Uk successor to the NHS, where the hospital won't start treatment until they have put a lien on your house

@saltinesandcoffeecups

There is absolutely no obligation on anyone to allow health visitors into their homes.

They are nurses, coming from the local health centre, coming to new mothers' homes so that the new mothers do not need to go to them until they feel able to and if they don't want to go to see a health visitor then they don't have to. They are not some sort of state agency.

They are not spies, and the statement that you've read about having nothing to hide is nonsense.

My DD on her third baby was asked if she wanted a HV to call, she said she didn't need one and of course, no one came.

When the NHS was started in 1948 the government at the time said that it would be there to care for the population 'from the cradle to the grave'. The HV is just one of the people who is there to help and carry out that pledge.

No one is obliged to have any help or treatment from them or any other part of the NHS.

You seem to have a very odd idea of what life in Britain is like if you think that HVs are some sort of 'state spies' effectively forcing their way into peoples' homes.

but they drive on roads funded by by the state, no roads are funded by the town in which you live or are toll roads.

send their children to schools funded by the state, again paid for by the town in which you live.

use emergency services funded by the state again paid by the town.

Over here our council tax equivalent is paid to the town. The town then pays for the town school which guarantees a place for all kids living in the town. Police, fire and ambulance are all town services.

From this thread and it’s not an unusual statement on MN.

1. Health visitors need your permission to visit and there are never enough of them to cover the demand. They are there to make your life easier, not harder. If you have something you're so desperate to hide from your health visitors, I'd venture a pretty confident guess at where your problem truly lies.

If the NHS is a gov’t entity and the HV is employed by the NHS, they are a gov’t employee. That’s how I and many others would view them.

iirc about 10% of US GDP goes on the armed forces, which are federal, not local
And they are mostly regarded as heroes
Odd that those who save lives can't also be regarded as heroes, instead of spies

This is an interesting thread.
I’m British but used to live in the USA. My dd was born there.
I had amazing healthcare in the states. By luck rather than design, my insurance was incredible. I was able to receive proper diagnosis and effective treatment for lifelong health conditions that had never been taken seriously by the nhs.
My postnatal care was fab. A lovely nurse came to visit me a few days after my Dd was born to check on stitches, breastfeeding, mood etc. My dd had CMPI - I had a paediatric nurse available on the phone whenever I needed her. I had a therapist who saw me with my newborn to help protect me from pnd (history of mh issues).
My experience in the uk when ds was born was very very different. I had a forty minute drive each way to see a midwife to get my stitches and ds checked just a few days after he was born. Suffering from baby blues, sitting in a hospital waiting room having had to listen to my newborn son screaming for the whole journey there was a horrible experience and I’m sure contributed to my becoming very ill after with pnd.
I believe I have read that actually the us system pretty much props up the global pharmaceutical industry. Drugs companies can invest more in r and d knowing that they can charge US customers a fortune that they could never get from customers in other countries. IE we all benefit from rich Americans paying through the nose for their healthcare.
It’s fucked up.

@BigChocFrenzy

Yes we do consider our armed forces as heroes. But that would change immediately if they wanted to enter our houses and we were considered guilty of something if we didn’t want them.

The military has no jurisdiction in civilian affairs except in limited circumstances (national guard, declared emergencies, etc.).

I find myself wondering who they think will be making the decisions on what procedures are covered/offered and which ones aren’t.

I envision doctors making these decisions based on medical necessity and level of need. Like surgeon general on down.

I don’t think politicians would be doing it with political agendas. They may affect funding by lobbying Congress. But worst case of healthcare rationing, it would still be doctors deciding how to best ration healthcare by necessity and need.

I don’t like how insurance companies make the decisions currently as it is done by actuaries/accountants purely based on profit not any sense of medical need or to prevent human suffering or death. What gives you a sense of security is actually what I hate most about our private system.

@BigChocFrenzy

Saltines is correct in that the Government is not trusted. Military active duty are the exception, not the rule. They are viewed as heroes while all other government workers are viewed as:
Untrustworthy
Incompetent
Lazy
Worse than welfare bums
Can’t get a real job
Overpaid
Liars

If you are police/ICE/DEA/CBP- you can add on:
Racists
Thugs
Gun happy
Wife beaters

I forgot “dirty” under police category. Firm belief here in US that most cops are dirty (corrupt).

America is like living in a third world country!

No, it’s not as bad as a 3rd world country!
We have problems,sure, but not on par with a 3rd world country.

I don’t like how insurance companies make the decisions currently as it is done by actuaries/accountants purely based on profit not any sense of medical need or to prevent human suffering or death.

This. The insurance company has zero vested interest in the “happy customer”. Their major sales points are B2B, and one person being unhappy with insurance isn’t a motivation for HR to change policies, offerings, or providers for the whole company as long as the majority don’t complain.

If one has the economic clout to up and change jobs when company sponsored insurance companies drop a needed drug from coverage or raise premiums & deductibles (roughly yearly, sometimes more often but unless it directly affects you it’d be difficult to notice) then that should be acknowledged as coming from a place of extreme privilege;

@gwenneh

I’m an actuary, I used to work in travel health insurance, if the treatment was more costly than a death payout and the success rate was less than 80% then the claim would typically be refused depending on which company you were working for.

It's so disgusting that money can be valued more than a life.
Money can be the root of all evil.

Unfortunately this is what the no deal advocates have in store for our country. This isn't project fear, just a very realistic glimpse of our near future if we crash out and let big US pharma trash the nhs...

I don’t think politicians would be doing it with political agendas. They may affect funding by lobbying Congress. But worst case of healthcare rationing, it would still be doctors deciding how to best ration healthcare by necessity and need.

Funding is exactly what I’m talking about. Have you not been following the Planned Parenthood funding issues? Why do people think that a fully gov’t funded healthcare system would be any different or there would be a separate outcome? It would most certainly be run by agenda.

You know that saying, “believe people when they show you who they are”? Meaning that you should base your decisions on how people act and their actions...the same is true for our gov’t. Look at their actions and tell me if that is who you want controlling your health. Use Planned Parenthood funding, VA system, Medicaid, and to certain extent Medicare.

If any of these systems were run successfully I would be open to exploring gov’t controlled care, as it is I see too much failure in these systems to believe the outcome would be any different on a larger scale.