SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the there-should-be-an-app-for-that dept.
Fountain Valley resident Jennifer Moore makes a really good point.
"When you take your car to the mechanic, they give you a written estimate before they touch it," she told me.
"So why is it that when you go to the hospital, you have no idea how much something will cost until the bill arrives?"
Moreover, why are prices so completely different from one healthcare provider to another?
And why is it that when patients try to find out in advance how much something will cost, they're treated like unwelcome guests rather than equal partners in their own treatment?
[...] The near-total lack of transparency in healthcare pricing is a key reason we have the highest costs in the world — roughly twice what people in other developed countries pay.
Simply put, drugmakers, hospitals, labs and other medical providers face no accountability for their frequently obscene charges because it's often impossible for patients to know how badly they're being ripped off.
[...] Moore's insurer, Cigna, was charged $2,758 by the medical center for the two ultrasounds. However, Cigna gets a contractual discount of just over $1,000 because it's, well, Cigna. All insurers cut such sweetheart deals with medical providers.
That lowered the bill to $1,739. Cigna paid $500. That left a balance of $1,239, for which Mika was entirely responsible because she hadn't met her $1,250 deductible for the year.
Moore quickly ascertained online that the average cost for a pair of ultrasounds is about $500 — meaning the medical center's original $2,758 charge represented a more than 400% markup.
Cigna's lower contractual charge of $1,739 still meant the bill had been marked up more than 200%.
And the $1,239 Mika had to pay was more than twice the national average.
Wait, it gets even worse.
Moore said that after working her way through various levels of customer service in the medical center's billing department, she learned that the cash price for the two ultrasounds was $521.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-07-29/column-could-our-healthcare-system-be-any-dumber
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @12:04PM (6 children)
Free market capitalism assumes transparency. We have very little transparency. This is not free market capitalism.
and all the advertising that we are constantly bombarded with does not provide us with much transparency. So the argument that advertising is good because it provides us with transparency and transparency is important to capitalism is nonsense here.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:51PM (5 children)
DaFUQ?!?! Seriously, WHAT DA FUQ are you talking about? Neither "free market", nor "capitalism", nor even "free market capitalism" makes ANY assumptions about "transparency". None of them even assumes that your damned windows are transparent!
Let me guess. English is not your first language. You had something to contribute to this conversation, and you trusted Google Translate to translate for you. And, Google Translate fucked you over big time. Google Translate has made you sound like an idiot.
Lesson to be learned: don't trust Google Translate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:47AM (4 children)
"Neither "free market", nor "capitalism", nor even "free market capitalism" makes ANY assumptions about "transparency"."
From Wikipedia
"Transparency is important since it is one of the theoretical conditions required for a free market to be efficient."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(market) [wikipedia.org]
So, yes, free market capitalism does assume transparency. Those that advocate free market capitalism assume transparency. They are, after all, arguing for an efficient economy.
I can't figure it out, is it that you're not in favor of free market capitalism or is it that you are in favor of a corrupted/incorrect version of free market capitalism that doesn't include transparency?
"English is not your first language. "
English is my strongest language but I can also speak other languages as well.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 04 2019, @08:00AM (3 children)
It has often been pointed out that Wikipedia is not an authoritativie source. Sorry, but the article you cite is nonsense. The free market has always allowed for you, a vendor, to set up shop wherever, whenever, and to market you goods at whatever price you choose to put on your goods. Nothing has ever required you to be "transparent". It doesn't matter whether you purchased your goods for .05% less than you are selling them for, or you purchased them for 5000% less. That is, you are never required to disclose your markup.
That is why people have traditionally shopped around. The General store has an item for $10, and the Dollar Store has a similar item for $110. Presuming that the two items are of similar quality, wiser shoppers will go to the General store to buy the $10, and less wise shoppers might purchase the Dollar store's offering.
The owner of the Dollar store is certainly not obligated to post a sign, telling customers that the General store has almost the same item available for $10.
When, in history, have there been any such rules, regulations, or laws, as the Wikipedia suggests? It's nonsense, I tell you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @12:55PM (2 children)
"It has often been pointed out that Wikipedia is not an authoritativie source."
I also learned this in economics.
"Economic theory as derived from Adam Smith assumes first that homo economicus acts with perfect optimality on complete information, and second that when many of the species homo economicus do that, their actions add up to the best possible outcome for everybody. "
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith [wikiquote.org]
Though I should probably find a quote from his actual book ... uhm ... doesn't look like his book mentions it so much.
I guess its emphasis was added to neoclassical economics, a more modern version of the classical economics that Adam Smith came up with.
"People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 04 2019, @03:16PM (1 child)
With good reason, I might add. That third central assumption is the real killer. If people chose rationally, Apple's iPhones would never have sold at upwards of $1000, when comparable phones are available at a mere $250. The only features that might make iPhone more valuable than some of the others, are security related. But, if people were rationally choosing phones for security reasons, Blackberry would still be going strong.
Some people do make rational decisions - but the market thrives on those who do not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @03:42PM
Different people have different values. What's rational to you may be irrational to someone else. I think spending money on status items like diamonds is absolutely stupid but economics does not assume that everyone has the same values. It posits that everyone seeks to maximize their utility based on their own values. Asserting your values onto others does not really negate economic theory.
Also, at least I have a source, whereas you don't even have one.