Well products like the ones you describe do exist. But apparently you don’t know them because you listed Bloomberg as high value when it’s a pay to play publication.
Ayahuasca is really cool, but many people trying to escape addiction use it only to find it doesn’t solve their problems and as a result they experience suicidal ideation. Be careful, the anti addiction effects of the drug definitely aren’t permanent in any case.
The two talks about the Gil removal were great. Also pyscript is great though they had 3 talks for some reason and only one really explained it. I did not watch the keynotes, but I heard they were bad and not technical. The general friendliness was good, masks didn’t feel annoying to me as it was okay outside and when eating and it was easy to just go outside.
No these superspreaders know what they’re writing is lies. I don’t really understand how holding people accountable for their actions is censorship, unaccountability is just censoring the victims.
Before the russians invaded, Western mainstream media reported that the russians were preparing to invade Ukraine.
Mainstream media [kremlin propaganda] in the russian federation mocked Western mainstream media and insisted that the russians weren't about to invade.
No, you can invent this idea that open access is a boogeyman, but it’s flat out corporate lies. This is free speech. I’m allowed to say I think a statement is untrustworthy.
Or you could do all those things by doing something that people pay you to stop. I think is kind of language is dangerous any American adult knows this isn’t really true because most people have choices because they have money and money gets you more money. This is free speech.
No catch. This is in the US, you can easily look it up. Its becoming a model that more primary care docs are adopting because there is immense overhead if you work with insurance companies. It ranges from the low end to the "concierge" doctor level where I have seen some charging in the thousands per month.
We still pay for consumables out of pocket including Rx medications. We still have a high deductible plan on top of this to cover emergencies/major illness. But I prefer this model as we get higher quality of care for roughly the same price as a non-high deductible plan.
I'm struggling to see how this works well for a family. You're basically uninsured. If you have sudden large expenses, like very expensive medication, it's not clear how you can make that work without hemorrhaging money. The high deductible isn't going to help you if it doesn't cover prescriptions.
Sorry I did not fully explain it. I am probably skipping some assortment of plans but the way I see it, you have PPO, HMO and HDHP. PPO is like a la carte to me, you generally have a wide network of doctors to pick from at your choosing, more flexibility with seeing specialists etc. HMO requires you to follow a funnel, with a single Primary Care doctor. HDHP is most similar to a PPO but you have a high deductible alongside it, while the deductible is higher than the PPO, the noticable difference is usually that you are paying for the majority of costs until hitting that deductible. So when seeing a primary care doc I would be paying for close to the full cost of that visit. The trade off is the monthly premium is significantly lower AND I get access to a health savings plan.
So when looking at it from a total annual loss perspective, the HDHP in the worst case would cost a few thousand more $3-5k than the equivalent PPO. There is nuance between plans but it can work well even if the individual as chronic conditions. Financially it makes sense and also I have strong beliefs that primary care is better served outside of insurance schemes.
High deductible might cover prescriptions but have a deductible amount. If you're in a position with enough savings, hsa or the like, you can hold enough per year to cover those deductibles. It will also shape the level of service you get. I'm paying for a PPO plan with a decently big deductible and max out of pocket so I can keep seeing one of the Mayo specialists I've been seeing for a few years now.
It's not the easiest option if I were making half as much with young children though.
I've been sticking to a PPO insurance for similar reasons. First, it's the only way to handle some of my medical needs. Second, it seems to be the only way to get decent care overall. I've thought about adding the same type of general care doctor back into the mix, as I don't like the current setup.
I have to see my regular doctor and 3 different specialists every quarter year... so, my needs go beyond what out of pocket is reasonable, given insurance negotiated rates. That said, the whole system is a bit of a mess, and insurance and pharma are large parts of the problem to begin with.
I don't want socialized medicine, but wouldn't mind replacing medicare/aid, govt employee and veteran coverage with a non-profit govt backed insurance corporation that allows anyone to buy into that coverage as an option. At least something resembling a baseline to compete with.
My suggestion is much less fascist/communist oriented. By socialized medicine, I mean fully socialized as in "the only option"... where medical establishments and corporations themselves are effectively govt run, not just regulated.
A state option for "insurance" that covers govt employees, but operates without a profit motive, while having the same negotiating standpoint of any general insurance provider is far different than what one would see in a fully socialized environment.
Edit: It's also from the PoV of continuing to offer coverage at all to those already covered by Federal spending, while avoiding increased costs. Basically better utilizing spend to expand competition, as opposed to limiting it.
Many countries have single payer healthcare systems and that has nothing to do with fascism or communism.
Healthcare is rife with asymmetric information by its nature. Doctors and nurses understand the medical services they offer much better than most patients. And privatizing insurance makes this worse. Now not only is the service itself opaque to patients but even the fees that they will need to pay for it.
But I also appreciate your point of view and it is good that PPO works decently well for you.
The catch is it doesn't cover anything outside of primary care.
If you're healthy and have a catastrophic plan as a backup if you get cancer, it can work. If you've got chronic issues, expensive medications, etc. it doesn't.
as a direct care doc, it can help with things 'outside' of primary care. Online doctor to doctor specialists consults, meds, labs, imaging, pathology, dme. Skin cancers can be biopsied and managed for no additional cost (procedure free, cost of pathology $70, meds) by family docs. Or we've helped get wholesale chemotherapy medications to make care affordable in coordination with specialists.
While I agree that the % of DPC docs compared to insurance PC docs is small. It has been growing quickly over the past decade and it is not "only in a few places", that you are wrong about.
Small world. I had actually thought about using your practice. Great job being both a spokesperson and providing the necessary software for DPC practices.
But private equity objectively does jack up the prices on those things. It just doesn’t own those businesses. The whole point is that it’s unsustainable to run a business that way. Look at these absurd restaurants prices, it’s private equity jacking up the prices on food and labeling it as “inflation”.
