Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday April 19 2019, @08:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the Death-is-cheap-life-is-expensive-dept dept.

Have you ever wondered what it costs to keep a person alive when they are on the brink of death? Thanks to a post by a suicide survivor who started a rash of posts concerning hospital costs for the mortally challenged we know that the hospital bill for suicide management can be from 10K to 100K. Oliver Jordan clocked up 25,000 likes and hundreds of responses to his post with some people saying it cost them 10K to 20K for a US emergency room visit. Once a patient enters a hospital they can racked many charges often without realising what the end bill will be.

In memory of MDC.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday April 19 2019, @10:47PM (13 children)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday April 19 2019, @10:47PM (#832346)

    "It's a huge scam. Which is why we need single-payer* health care in the US."

    I'm in 100% agreement with you on this matter with the caveat that the health care also needs to be affordable by everyone. One of the major problems with the current system in the USA is that there are huge numbers of people who can't afford coverage even with the Affordable Care Act.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday April 19 2019, @11:10PM (11 children)

    I'm in 100% agreement with you on this matter with the caveat that the health care also needs to be affordable by everyone. One of the major problems with the current system in the USA is that there are huge numbers of people who can't afford coverage even with the Affordable Care Act.

    You won't get any argument from me. I currently pay more than USD$700/month for health insurance on the ACA exchange in my state. I receive no subsidies, either.

    With a deductible at USD$600, it's not too terrible.

    However, there are many providers who just refuse to accept my insurance plan. When I changed insurers at the end of 2017 (as they were raising the premium by more than 50% up to more than USD$1,200/month), I had to stop physical therapy early after a surgical procedure, as the PT provider didn't accept my new plan. Even before I went on an ACA plan, my employer changed the insurance company they were using. I called my (then) GP's office to make sure they accepted the new plan and the first words out of the medical office person's mouth were, "Is that an ACA plan? We don't accept any of those!"

    That's despite the fact that the same insurers whose plans they did accept were also offering ACA plans. Which is because the insurers have attempted to sabotage the ACA from within by reducing reimbursements to providers for ACA plans, even when premiums were comparable.

    The worst part of the ACA was that thanks to Max Baucus [wikipedia.org] the "public option" was removed from the plan before it even got to the floor of the Senate.

    As for "affordable," removing the profit motive from the health insurance business is a great place to start. In Germany, for example, they have private insurers, but those insurers are *required by law* to operate as non-profit entities.

    By all objective measures, single-payer is more efficient, cost-effective, and leads to better health outcomes than the system we have now.

    The whack jobs screaming "socialism!", "government takeover!" and "let the market decide!" are either woefully misinformed or just being disingenuous.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @11:39PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @11:39PM (#832370)

      > those insurers are *required by law* to operate as non-profit entities.

      That sounds like a good start, but before you relax, take a look at what the top brass makes at some of the large non-profit organizations in USA. It's can be similar to C-suite wages in other big companies, many many times what the average worker makes.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:04AM (4 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:04AM (#832377) Homepage Journal

        That sounds like a good start, but before you relax, take a look at what the top brass makes at some of the large non-profit organizations in USA. It's can be similar to C-suite wages in other big companies, many many times what the average worker makes.

        Relax? WTF are you going on about? I wasn't even suggesting that the US go in that direction, was I? I advocated for *single-payer* not a system like Germany's.

        But you're right! Going with something like that, we should have all the executives *pay us* for the privilege of working at such a company. Otherwise it's just more of the same old capitalist exploitation, right?

        It's not like dividends paid out are many times the total compensation of a whole c-suite. amirite?

        Out of curiosity, do you have an actual suggestion as to how to make things better, or are you just part of the peanut gallery?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:44PM (3 children)

          by dry (223) on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:44PM (#832661) Journal

          Even with single payer, there's going to be insurance companies. Covering things that aren't covered by single payer such as here, optometrist, dental, drugs in many instances and traveling. Lots of commercials here about the dangers of traveling to the States without insurance.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:52AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:52AM (#832819)

            Everything should be fully covered. I don't understand why health problems in your mouth or eyes aren't covered, but health issues that affect other parts of your body are. Come on now.

            • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:18AM

              by dry (223) on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:18AM (#832850) Journal

              Not disagreeing but it all costs though some decisions are stupid. Optometrist used to be fully covered, then it was cut back to once every 2 years (in my case with a genetic disposition, once a year), now, only for under 19 yrs. Dental was also covered for a short while, when the government changed to the right side, it was removed.
              Perhaps the dentist lobby is bigger, or more likely, had better timing. When single payer was brought in, the Doctors were not happy at all as single payer includes price fixing. All prices are set by the government, at least here in BC, with negotiations. The Doctors actually came out better then they expected as billing is so simple.
              Another benefit, not sure if by law, is that all prices are published, even at the dentist, though the dentist is more free to negotiate with the patient over price. Doctors are basically limited, even with the non-covered though they can charge less or get you on the exchange rate if you whip out a couple of American 20's.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:36PM

            Yes. You are 137.8% correct, sir.

            If I implied otherwise, I certainly didn't intend to do so.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:34PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:34PM (#832528)

      I pay 2% of my income*, it covers 90 to 100% of every bill. Every legit provider doesn't get a choice about accepting it, and the only things it doesn't cover are unnecessary cosmetic surgery and dental. Also, our procedure prices aren't massively inflated with bullshit, and almost all drugs are $2 - $20 per prescription.
      My recent chest Xray :
      - GP visit for referral - Bulk-billed** - no out-of-pocket charge
      - X-rays at clinic - $200 - Refunded $170 - Cost me $30
      - Follow up visit with GP to discuss - Bulk-billed - $0
      - Prescription $15 for one month supply.

      Total $45

      Oz medicare FTW.
      -----------------------
      *it's 2% if you earn less than $100,000 P/A. 3% if you earn over that and don't take the optional private insurance.

      ** bulk-billing - The practice of signing the rebate over to the doctor/clinic in exchange for the bill being exactly the rebate. You pay nothing, the doc makes it up by not having tp worry about getting paid and by cutting her accounting costs.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 20 2019, @01:24PM (3 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday April 20 2019, @01:24PM (#832551) Homepage Journal

        Thanks for the breakdown.

        As you may or may not know, in addition to the millions in the US who have *no* coverage, the ~12 million who use our "insurance exchanges" [wikipedia.org], most Americans get their insurance through their employer.

        As I mentioned, I pay ~USD$8,500.00/annum (an individual plan, as opposed to a family plan, which are enormously more expensive), plus co-payments (ranging from USD$30 for visiting the GP, USD$40 for specialists and anywhere from USD$5-70 for prescriptions. In addition, the first USD$600 of expense each year comes out of my pocket -- not inclusive of co-payments) for my insurance from one of the "exchanges."

        Most employers implement a cost-sharing structure where the employer pays a portion of the monthly premiums and the employee pays a portion. Those portions vary from employer to employer. My last employer covered half and I covered the other half.

        I give all this detail for a reason (other than just to bore you). Median income in the US is ~USD56,000. Two percent of that is ~USD$1100/annum.

        Should the US implement a similar plan, I would save a whole lot of money, as would most people. Who, I'm sure would be free to purchase additional insurance if they wish.

        What's more, employers would be relieved of not just premium payments, but also employees (in large corporations, whole departments) who just deal with health insurance. Medical practices, hospitals and other healthcare and medical testing practices would also save significant amounts, as they need employees and, in some cases, whole departments just to handle medical billing with multiple insurers/plans.

        Moving beyond that, significant economies of scale can be had to save enormous amounts of money. Our Medicare (just for folks over 65), for example, has overhead of ~3%, while private insurers generally have much higher overhead, not to mention their profits.

        To give you an example, Anthem [wikipedia.org], one of the largest insurers in the US, has ~40 million health insurance customers.

        In 2018, they had profits of nearly USD$4 Billion on revenues (premiums) of ~USD$90 Billion. I don't have figures which detail how much of the $90 billion actually pays for medical care and how much is overhead. However, if they had overhead of 3% (like our Medicare), those 40 million people could either get a whole lot more health care, lower premiums, or both.

        Even more, a single-payer system would have much more power to negotiate prices from healthcare providers *and* pharmaceutical companies (we pay enormously more than any other country for the same medications).

        It's beyond me why there are people who don't have a vested interest in current system who don't see how single-payer would be much, much better than what we have now.

        If employers don't have to pay a portion of the premiums and employ people just to manage those processes, they could pay their employees more. It's really a win-win for everyone but the insurance industry.

        As an aside, I'm not a health care or insurance expert, just a user of the system. I'm sure there are many other ways to save money and improve care that I have no clue about.

        Yes. I hijacked your comment to plug single-payer in the US. But you really laid bare just how wasteful our system is. Thank you again.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:09AM (#832835)

          There are several obvious groups who like the current US system.
          The 0.1% who own most things and don't have to worry about healthcare costs. They get excellent care, and hide the cost as a business expense.
          Politicians/public servants who get really good plans cheap.
          Insurance companies who make shitloads of money off it.

          There are also other reasons that are not so obvious. Employers are generally well off enough to not worry about the costs, but they like that the current system ties you to them. They get to fire you whenever they feel like it, but quitting is a major deal for anyone with a family with any health problems. This is a huge power imbalance that adds to the general denigration of unions in dis-empowering the employee side when negotiating wages.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:06PM (#832928)

          I should have made it clearer that the system covers everybody. 2% of income and you, your kids, your wife are all covered. Earn nothing, pay nothing, and you are still covered. The 2% is simply collected along with income tax, and there is no connection between how much you paid, and the fact that you have coverage under the system.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:27PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:27PM (#832654) Journal

    One of the major problems with the current system in the USA is that there are huge numbers of people who can't afford coverage even with the Affordable Care Act.

    Far from the first time that the names of bills have been misleading.