How We Accidentally Enrolled in Medicaid and Faced Financial Ruin

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

28 Responses

  1. Damon says:

    Jeebus Will, what a run of bad luck. I truly am sorry. It’s stories like this that makes me a bit paranoid about saving money…..while recently unemployed, I starting working down my “emergency fund”, only to have a lot of car problems, shelling out 5K over 3 months to fix it. I’m now trying to dump money back into my emergency fund now that my car seems to be working well…..Report

  2. InMD says:

    Good Lord. I am glad to hear you got out the other side of this situation.

    Additionally it gives me an excuse to bring up one of the biggest problems with our healthcare system, namely that instead of leveraging the size of our large country there are a bunch of places where we artificially break up what should be one insurance market into 50 markets for no apparent reason or benefit.Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    Sorry to hear of this run of bad luck, and I’m glad to hear its getting better.

    My reaction is to think of how I, we, all of us here at OT should regard this and what our part was in creating the conditions Will describes.

    The overall framework of our healthcare system is constructed by the taxpayers and voters, and the various maze of tripwires and trapdoors described are designed and put there for the specific purpose of making it hard to get assistance, and remarkably easy to lose it.

    I say this because since as long as I can remember, any discussion about public healthcare assistance always was framed and shrouded in dark warnings about how we need to make sure that no one is malingering, that people must have “skin in the game”.

    As if, were eye surgery free, just everyone and their dog would rush out to get their free eye surgery like a giveaway of sneakers or something.

    Again, we, every single one of us here reading and commenting, created this.

    We voted for this, over and over, specifically instructing our political leaders to construct a system that had all sorts of tripwires and trapdoors to catch the unwary but malingering deadbeats who wanted to get eye surgery for their children, on the chance that they were secretly rich, or that it might be unnecessary.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      “we, all of us here at OT should regard this and what our part was in creating the conditions Will describes.”

      I have never said anything other than “we should all be able to buy into Medicare”.

      The only time a politician with that as a plan ever got near being President, I voted for him.Report

  4. DensityDuck says:

    “If we’d known how long things would be bad we likely would have taken much more dramatic steps such as selling our house and relocating to hunker down with family in a trailer her parents own.”

    People keep saying that this-or-that thing about the COVID Lockdowns was the real problem.

    To my mind, the worst problem with the COVID Lockdowns was that they kept saying the lockdowns would end real soon. Oh, it’s just through April. Oh, it’s just to the end of the school year. Oh, it’s just for the summer. Oh, it’s just until Thanksgiving, until Christmas, until next Spring, until until until.

    I mean, I can understand why they kept saying that, because if they’d said in March 2020 “yeah this is a year and a half easy, probably more like two or three” then there’d have been riots in the streets, but there were so many people who figured “we’ll just draw down our savings and stay put because it’ll all be over in a month or two, they said so on TV the other day…” and by the time it was obvious things were gonna go the distance they didn’t have any money left.

    Hope came out of Pandora’s Box, and there’s a reason why it was in there.Report

    • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

      Most of the lockdowns – where you’d get in legal jeopardy for going somewhere or doing something – ended in months not years. Masking restrictions and entry requirements lasted longer most places but they were never to prevent movement or congregation.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        “Why are you complaining? The stuff you did was mostly voluntary.”Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Philip H says:

        “Lockdown” and “years” may be an exaggeration, but schools in California were closed for over a year in much of the country and only re-opened due to a vaccine and a lot of political pressure. Churches in New York were closed for eight months and essentially required a court order to be reopened.

        Most indications suggest it only wasn’t “years” (at least in a lot of places) due to pushback, courts, and miracle vaccines.

        To be honest, though, I think the lack of clarity was mostly due to a lack of consensus. Some people believed early on that we were talking about a year or more. Others didn’t, but never wanted to pull the trigger on reopening/unmasking/etc. Others were supportive at first but were later among those demanding the trigger be pulled.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

          Also, the length of Covid was affected by the public’s behavior. Had everyone masked up, social distanced, and gotten vaccines promptly, the length of the pandemic would have been very different.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            It’s almost enough to make you wish that political leadership had masked up too.

            Almost.Report

          • I was on board with a lot of mitigation early on with this idea, but what I found over time is that mitigation seems to mostly begat more mitigation. When transmission rates were low or falling it was proof the mitigation was working. When transmission rates were high and climbing it just demonstrated their continued necessity.

            For the US in particular, our limited willingness and ability to restrict travel doomed almost anything else we might have done, and the length of the pandemic (and thus pandemic response) would have been roughly the same (until widespread vaccination).Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

              This is true, but the salient point is that the spread of a virus depends on human behavior.

              HIV spread like wildfire until people started using condoms and limiting the number of partners.

              It is completely true that “when rates were falling, it showed that condoms worked, and when rates were climbing it demonstrated continued necessity of condoms.”

              What I see a lot of, is people wanting to argue with basic biological facts. If you are in close proximity with people who are expelling microdroplets of the virus, you will likely get infected.

              Period. End of discussion.

              “But what if its my daughter’s birthday!”

              Doesn’t matter.

              “But my religious rights!”

              Doesn’t matter.

              The only thing that matters is reducing the pathways for microdroplets to go from person to person.

              Changing people’s behavior reduces the number of pathways, and changes the trajectory of the viral spread.

              Maybe the people can’t or won’t change their behavior, but that doesn’t change the basic fact of biology.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “But what if I’m an important politician?”Report

              • Well, on the question of whether behavior would have ended the pandemic (and pandemic measures more quickly)… I think the answer is no.

                As to the rest… one of the things that shifted my views on mitigation is that it seems like partial measures didn’t accomplish partial results when it came to containing the spread. It’s like if you have an angry swarm of bees descending on you, and you managed to kill half of them before they get to you, you may have reduced the number of sting vectors but if the swarm is big enough you still end up in the hospital. That’s also biology.

                Some states did a lot to reduce the spread of Covid and some did little. You didn’t start to see a real change in trajectory of outcomes until the vaccine. The best predictors of outcomes prior to that point had more to do with geography and age distribution.

                To be clear, I’m not saying that there’s nothing we could have done to achieve better outcomes. For logistical and political reasons, though, I think the actions we would have needed to have taken were beyond our reach. Primarily because of the travel issue, which limited our toolkit considerably.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

                “Ending” the pandemic was never a possible outcome under any scenario.

                “Mitigating”, i.e., reducing the number of people stung by the bees/infected with the virus, was and remains something entirely within our ability to affect, based on our behavior.

                To say that Americans “can’t” change their behavior for reasons a thru n may be true, but doesn’t change the fact that we are writing our own destiny and have no one to blame but ourselves.

                Over a million Americans are dead now due to the virus, and that number almost certainly would be a lot lower had we behaved differently.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                America could have gone with extensive contact tracing like they did in South Korea. No need to lock down but the population needs to be willing to work with the government and the government needs to be effective. America and other Western countries seems to have gotten a lot of the worse. People who refused to take the pandemic seriously and governments that were ineffective in one way or another.Report

              • “Mitigating”, i.e., reducing the number of people stung by the bees/infected with the virus, was and remains something entirely within our ability to affect, based on our behavior.

                This honestly goes to the point that I was making, which is that given that the goal was to mitigate the virus using things under our control, it is unlikely that earlier action would have reduced the later need to take most of those those actions.

                The arguments in favor of those actions would have remained until a vaccine became available. So speeding up access to the vaccine might have moved the needle a bit, but masking and social distancing less so.

                So while I take a lot of issue with what was done and left undone, by and large I do not blame public behavior for the length of the pandemic (or the duration of the measures taken to mitigate it).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

                This pretty much contradicts everything we know about infectious diseases especially airborne ones like Covid.

                I mean, there is plenty of documentation of where a single person went to a restaurant or theater or party and infected a dozen others.

                And does this logic apply to the influenza virus, or rhinovirus, that it doesn’t matter if you wear a mask or just sneeze into the air, it doesn’t matter if you stay home when you are sick or just go to work?Report

              • Not really, even if things with Covid worked exactly as you say. The benefit to the NPI would be less death throughout the pandemic and not the pandemic ending earlier thus allowing us to get on with our lives.

                There’s a lot of debate to be had over which pandemic mitigation measures did and didn’t effect (some did, others didn’t, some required others to work), but since none of them actually ended the pandemic none of them played a role in the length of the pandemic.

                Australia did a phenomenal job reducing death, but they were in pandemic mode for roughly as long as we were.Report

              • Oh, and to be clear I recognize that for a bit we were actually talking about the efficacy of NPI in general and I pulled it back to the effect on the length. I meant to actually say something like “Rather than get into a drawn out discussion of what works and what doesn’t generally I want to focus on the original subject of pandemic length.”

                I wasn’t trying to be sneaky.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

                Infectious diseases never end.
                The Hong Kong flu, avian flu, H1N1, Ebola…these things still exist, but at greatly minimized levels.

                The “end” of a pandemic is an arbitrary line where the number of cases and deaths falls below a certain agreed upon level. Covid is still happening, just at a much lower level.

                And given that masking and distancing is proven to reduce the number of cases, then yes, they DO cause the infection spread to “end” earlier.

                We have data on this.

                During Covid, influenza cases dropped dramatically. It is accepted that this was due to the mitigation measures for Covid such as masking, distancing, travel restrictions. The “flu season” of 2020 and 2021 was shorter, flatter and had many fewer cases and deaths.

                With Covid, we lucked out because the time between first outbreak and vaccination was miraculously short which has the effect of making mitigation measures seem unimportant.

                But they aren’t. Public health practices like mandatory handwashing for food employees, school vaccinations, sneeze guards and mask mandates are essential safeguards for the next pandemic which is always, always, just around the corner.

                And now, thanks to the persistent efforts of anti-vax cranks and political malefactors, the refusal to accept public health practices has become mainstream.Report

              • And given that masking and distancing is proven to reduce the number of cases, then yes, they DO cause the infection spread to “end” earlier.

                Infection spread? Perhaps. Pandemic? No. Pandemics are by their nature international. Definitionally so. As such, a nation cannot really stop a pandemic.

                When you said “length of the pandemic” above I assumed you to mean the amount of time we were in pandemic mode (both in terms of policy and public behavior) and we were using “pandemic” as shorthand for that.

                The pandemic officially ended globally in March of this year. Better global distribution of the vaccine may have sped it up, but not sure anything else would have.

                I would say the response (“pandemic mode” for lack of a better term) effectively ended in early 2022 at the latest but mostly ended in 2021 with the distribution of the vaccine.

                I don’t think a more aggressive response would have sped that along, so I don’t think we can say that it took as long as it did because of public behavior.

                Report

  5. Jaybird says:

    That really sucks. I’m glad that things might be turning around. I’m sorry that it took so long!

    The way the world works is really dumb.
    1. “resume gap”
    Seriously, this one is just silly. I know of HR departments that prefer someone to change jobs every six months to someone having a gap.
    If *I* were looking at a resume and saw a resume with a different job every six months, I’d say “are we prepared to lose this guy in six months?” A gap, at least, can be hammered out. “You wouldn’t believe the last two years. Seriously. Let’s get some coffee because this is gonna take a while…”

    2. “The surgeon marked down the price considerably”
    My first reaction is “this guy is a saint”. The second is some variant of wondering whether the usual price is why he is able to mark down the price occasionally or whether there is a severe disconnect between what he charges insurance/the government and what he charges real people because heck with insurance/government. And, if it’s the latter, we’ve got a bumpy road coming.

    The lack of transparency and illegibility in general is, I suppose, the story of both of them.

    We need more transparency and legibility. Oh. That comes at the cost of privacy, I guess. Jeez.Report

  6. North says:

    Good Lord Will I’m so sorry you all had to go through this. What a hair raising experience.Report

  7. Slade the Leveller says:

    I remember watching a Frontline documentary on PBS about the U.S. healthcare system. The filmmakers traveled around the world for comparison, and they asked people in various countries if they’d ever heard of someone going bankrupt due to medical expenses. To a man, they all looked at the interviewer as if he had a 3rd eye in the middle of his forehead.

    My dad worked in group health underwriting his entire working life. In the mid-70s he swore national healthcare was right around the corner.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

      “In the mid-70s he swore national healthcare was right around the corner.”

      And it is, if you’re over 65 or you can get a doctors’ note saying you’re permanently unable to work.Report