|
On February 23 2013 14:50 Omnidroid wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost to go to the doctors with a broken arm in the US?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken arm cost usa
(the answer you are looking for was hit number 3: http://health.costhelper.com/broken-arm.html )
Slightly more seriously, it would depend on the fracture and your insurance status. The point of the article linked by the OP is that insurance status should not affect the cost - or at least not as much as it does and that it is ridiculous that what the state pays 10 USD for (covering all profits) a non-insured has to pay 199.00 USD for.
|
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%.
|
On February 23 2013 15:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:50 Plexa wrote:On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:
If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. I normally stay out of these threads but you are seriously deluded if you truly believe this. If you have a serious illness and you cut insurance out of the picture then you're essentially condemning most of them to death. Many diseases have no cures and only things which treat the symptoms and hence are required to take life long meds. Once the money runs out to support that, the disease takes over and people die. The vast majority of people with serious illness take things pretty damn seriously, its quite insulting to suggest otherwise. I didn't say they didn't take things seriously. I'm using it as an analogy. The medical industry is seriously flawed, and as such any fix is likely to be just as serious. I believe insurance is the problem. I respect anyone else's position as well, and I don't expect people to think I believe my way is the only way. But every solution will have serious side effects, simply due to its scale. There is no perfect solution that will completely fix the situation with no difficulties.
Just admit that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about and quietly excuse yourself from this thread before you become even more ludicrous.
User was warned for this post
|
Well, most countries i know of use systems in which you have the right to proper medical treatment by law. In the US you don't, it's just a "ware" like coffee. And that's stupid. Over here it's a bit like police and firefighters. You get it if you need it, there's little to no profit to be made (not saying the insurance companies don't try to, but it's not a free market).
That's how it should be imo. And to be honest, to say "well, let's get rid of insurances, fuck the couple of poor people that will die in the process" is so ignorant, it scratches the border to being retarded.
|
On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%.
There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit.
|
There is also a good infographic about this: http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/what-makes-health-care-so-expensive/
At the end of the day, Healthcare is a for-profit industry in this country with a lot of lobbying power behind it to make sure it stays that way. Also, we aren't just getting ripped off by hospitals. Dentistry is also insanely expensive in this country. Hell, I recently had to get a couple root canals done on teeth that were bad for awhile and it was over 1k. I got quoted for about 4k for the remaining dental work. Take in account being unemployed and no insurance and what the fuck is this? I could have got those root canals done at a private clinic in another country for almost half of what I paid here....what the fuck? There are people who literally fly halfway around the world to other countries to get extensive dental work done because it is so fucking much here. If I wasn't for my family pitching in and taking it among themselves, I would still have those bad teeth in which could have gotten badly infected and gotten me very sick. In my mind, this is not fucking moral.
Reading the stories in that article makes me cringe though. If I were to have some horrible injury and have to stay in a hospital for an extended period of time, I would be fucked. It would be easier to just close my bank account and flee the country instead of being in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that I would never be able to repay.
Insurance isn't that helpful anyways. You still pay out the ass unless you are really lucky and happen to be in the military or retired military. Tricare is fucking amazing, but insurance like that should be what everyone has.
|
On February 23 2013 15:24 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%. There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit.
So you want hospitals to decide how much profit they should make? Because thats what they are doing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. He wasnt advocating insurance picking up the entire tab, the point of his post was that insurance companies serve as a buffer that pacify the consumer.
|
Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the taxpayer funded healthcare system in Canada and most of Europe foot 100% of the bill? People take precautions against getting sick because getting sick sucks. Even with insurance, most people hate going to the doctor or the hospital, and it also seems evident that having to bear the costs of being fat and out of shape in America isn't keeping us skinny and fit at all.
|
On February 23 2013 15:28 Dagan159 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:24 Oktyabr wrote:On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%. There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit. So you want hospitals to decide how much profit they should make? Because thats what they are doing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. He wasnt advocating insurance picking up the entire tab, the point of his post was that insurance companies serve as a buffer that pacify the consumer.
That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
|
Medical Care in the US is strange.
Even Government programs "overpay", in absolutely no small part due to lobbyists. If during program creation, you not only have a loud and presumed knowing voice arguing to make as much money as possible, and people who agree that is right and are willing to make it happen during the price negotiation (See, Medicare). Especially if it leads to jobs after their price negotiations.
Stolen from Wikipedia: "Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D).
So, basically Medicine is a business in America. To most of the rest of the world, it is a basic human right given to their citizens with varying levels of options of private care. In America, it's.... not. So that may make the conversation confusing to any international people.
|
On February 23 2013 15:34 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 15:28 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 15:24 Oktyabr wrote:On February 23 2013 15:12 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Insurance is a problem in that it insulates consumers from the reality of the inflated costs of their care. Let's say you have insurance through your job and pay $5000 right out of your paycheck for it. I bet very few people actually know how much they're paying since they're not writing a check for it themselves every year. Now let's say you go to the hospital and they charge $50,000. Your insurance company pays some negotiated rate much lower than that and sticks you with $2500. At this point you're probably thinking "whew I'm glad I had insurance; I'd be FUCKED otherwise," but (assuming no other major medical issues that year) you paid $7500. As the Time piece discovered, the hospitals would still be making profits if they charged 10% of those inflated rates. So really, you paid $7500 yourself (not to mention what the insurance company paid) for care that should have cost you $5000 tops, but instead of being pissed off at the hospital, you're ecstatic that you didn't go bankrupt. If you're mad at anyone, it's the insurance company that didn't pay out 100%. There's no way an insurance company would foot 100% of the bill. There must be a cost levied on the consumer, if not the consumer won't ever take any precautions on their own end to avoid getting sick. Obviously this doesn't apply to every ailment out there, but moral hazard does exist if the average guy doesn't watch his own diet or exercise regularly. If anything, the bill should be inspected at the healthcare provider's end to figure out how much does it actually cost them to provide that service, and what would be a reasonable profit. So you want hospitals to decide how much profit they should make? Because thats what they are doing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. He wasnt advocating insurance picking up the entire tab, the point of his post was that insurance companies serve as a buffer that pacify the consumer. That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
Oh sorry I misread your post -.- Basically thats what medicare does currently, unfortunately not everyone qualifies. D=
It would undoubtely be beneficial if the private system could get on board with this, the thing is, it would require government internvention, and not only does the healthcare system lobby like crazy, people would go nuts if the government started price fixing.
|
On February 23 2013 15:38 Fuzzmosis wrote:
Medical Care in the US is strange.
Even Government programs "overpay", in absolutely no small part due to lobbyists. If during program creation, you not only have a loud and presumed knowing voice arguing to make as much money as possible, and people who agree that is right and are willing to make it happen during the price negotiation (See, Medicare). Especially if it leads to jobs after their price negotiations.
Stolen from Wikipedia: "Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D).
So, basically Medicine is a business in America. To most of the rest of the world, it is a basic human right given to their citizens with varying levels of options of private care. In America, it's.... not. So that may make the conversation confusing to any international people.
If by strange, you mean a complete fucking joke (like so many other things in this country), then yes, you are correct.
It fucking boggles my mind how ignorant, ultra-patriotic conservatives can brag about this country being the "best country on earth" when the average American's quality of life is quite lacking compared to other developed countries. Yes, you can love America, and I love this country just as much as the next SANE individual, but loving your country doesn't mean that you ignore its absolutely horrific faults. You FIX THEM.
|
On February 23 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 14:23 Millitron wrote:On February 23 2013 14:04 Dagan159 wrote:On February 23 2013 13:54 Millitron wrote:
Insurance is the problem. Hospitals and pharma companies can charge that much because most of their "customers" costs are covered by huge insurance companies. Get rid of insurance, demand falls, and so will prices. Demand never falls. People dont stop being sick. Insurance companies usually get 40-50% of chargemaster prices. You will initially be charged 100% of chargemaster costs unless you get outside help. Demand will fall. Yes people keep getting sick, but they can't actually get the care, because they can't afford it. That counts as falling demand. Yes, it will suck like shit at first, but things will improve eventually, and once they do they will be better than they are now. If you have a serious illness, you don't pussyfoot around and try tons of half-measures, you take the prescribed medicine, regardless of how bad the side-effects are. Likewise, the healthcare industry is seriously flawed, and only extreme measures will suffice. I suppose you could lessen the impact by slowly phasing out insurance instead of just dismantling it overnight, but I think it must be done one way or another. I hate this "morality play" logic. We see it all the time in politics. "If only we induce and endure suffering for a brief period, then we will enter another golden age!" Any clear path that creates suffering before creating this "better" system isn't a path at all.
Ye I hate this morality play logic too. I may be grossly overweight, but I don't like dieting, and Im not buying that 'no pain, no gain' bullshit. Any path that trades short term pleasures for more substantial long term pleasures is STUPID, LDO, LOL.
|
On February 23 2013 15:28 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the taxpayer funded healthcare system in Canada and most of Europe foot 100% of the bill? People take precautions against getting sick because getting sick sucks. Even with insurance, most people hate going to the doctor or the hospital, and it also seems evident that having to bear the costs of being fat and out of shape in America isn't keeping us skinny and fit at all.
yes and no.
Yes, because you can get all medically required and effective procedures paid.
No, because if you want a single room in the hospital, and treatment by the head of the station, it costs extra.
No, because some things have a upper limit of what health insurance will pay: Not more than 600 Euro for a pair of glasses for example. There is NO limit on surgery costs, or medication.
No, because - at least for private health insurance - you can put a co-pay agreement in your contract, which makes the monthly rates go way down. However, this is not a 'I pay 30%, the health insurance company pays 70%' thing, there is a set amount of spending per year that you have to pay before the health insurance company pays anything.
To elaborate on the last point: I took pretty much the most extreme co-payment thing from my private health insurance company: Over the whole year, the first 1200 Euro in medical expenses, I will have to pay for myself, then they will pay 100%. I also have it in my contract, that for every year after the two first years, where I do not hand in any bills, I cumulatively get half a month of premiums back, up to a maximum of three full months' premiums.
For that setup, I pay about 150 Euro per month, and at the end of the year, I get 375 back. Having said that, I would have to rack up around 2000 Euro in one year before it makes any sense to even consider handing in bills.
And 2000 Euros translates to somewhere between 200 and 10 visits to a doctor:
~200 times to go and see my GP to have him look at a giant pimple
80 times to go and have a 30 minute massage from a physical therapist
10 times to go to the dentist, have an x-ray taken, a thorough cleaning of plaque and treatment of exposed tooth necks
So, in a typical year, I pay maybe 200 Euro for visits to doctors and medication, but if I ever get anything serious, it will be 1200 that year, and then 100% paid by the health insurance company.
I am not sure exactly what the current system is for public ally insured people when it comes to medication, there might be some percentage-based co-payment system involved for prescription medicine.
Also: There is no television advertising (not sure about print) allowed for prescription medication
|
Healthcare is a good example of an industry that does not work in an open marketplace, unlike most other goods and services. The reason is simple; the consumer of healthcare has little to no bargaining power. When this happens, customers will be fragmented and have no access to substitute products. Prices will rise, because customers have little to no price sensitivity. The industry will end up with fixed, high costs.
See: Porter's Five Forces, Bargaining power of Customers
|
I agree, health care does not work in a free market. But Obamacare isn't the answer to this problem. If a company has over 30 employees, and if those employees work full time, they fall under Obamacare. So what do you think a company who couldn't care less about its employees will do? I'm guessing make as many as possible part-time jobs, and if a small business is right over the threshold of 30 workers, lay a few off so they don't fall under Obamacare. Many companies are already announcing lay-offs because they don't want to pay to potentially get medical care to save their lives. Just google "obama care job loss" or something. I like the idea in theory, but there are too many harmful loopholes.
|
United States163 Posts
There may be no perfect solution, but I think there are solutions that provide only upsides over our current situation. Our system is very stupid the way it is now, but kinda unchangeable because of the number of people who want the government to stay out of anything to do with money.
|
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
|
On February 23 2013 23:36 rackdude wrote:
This is something covered in Economic Development courses as an interesting externality problem. The problem is that the US system is paying for the research of many drugs. This comes at a high cost to the US citizen and is enforced through patents. However, many of of these patents expire much sooner / are not policed in the world market, so the same drugs end up much cheaper everywhere else. So you have this odd problem that the US healthcare system is basically subsidizing most of the healthcare research for the world. So the rest of the world has a positive externality from this, but we get nothing from it. Also, the rest of the world has no incentive to set up as much healthcare research as long as the US has this system they can keep taking from. It's a new take on the tragedy of the commons ordeal.
I'd love to see sources on that.
Looking at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4s8.htm and the xls sheet from it http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c4/at04-46.xls I see some western countries spend way more than the US percentage-wise
And I'd like to see numbers for the drugs not paying off, especially considering how little the generic ones generally cost in comparison to the trademarked ones.
And even that part of the argument does not address the horrendous charges for hospital visits and running some tests OR the huge salaries of the CEOs OR the huge hospital 'industry' - did you even read the whole article?
|
May I ask what the average doctor earns in the U.S ? Reading the sums for treatments and little diagnostic measures I'd imagine it to be a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
