SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
COVID-19 hospitalizations could mean significant out-of-pocket medical costs for many Americans:
For their study, the researchers analyzed out-of-pocket costs for pneumonia and other upper respiratory illness hospitalizations from January 2016 through August 2019 as a potential indicator of likely COVID-19 costs. The researchers found that these out-of-pocket costs were particularly high for so-called consumer-directed health plans -- which typically feature lower premiums, compared to standard plans, but higher deductibles that can be paid via tax-advantaged health savings accounts.
[...] Many big-name health insurers have voluntarily waived out-of-pocket cost sharing for COVID-19 treatment. However, employer-sponsored "self-insured" health insurance plans are not required to adhere to such waivers. Thus, tens of millions of Americans have high-deductible insurance plans that, in cases of COVID-19 hospitalization, may expose them to relatively high out-of-pocket costs.
[...] To get a sense of the likely cost burden on patients hospitalized for COVID-19, Eisenberg and colleagues examined de-identified insurance claims for 34,395 unique hospitalizations from January 2016 through August 2019. They looked at out-of-pocket costs incurred by people who had been hospitalized during the 2016-2019 study period with pneumonia, acute bronchitis, lower respiratory infections, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. (Claims data on actual COVID-19 cases were not available in the database at the time of the study.) The cases examined did not include those for people ages 65 and over, who are normally covered by Medicare. The out-of-pocket costs included deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance payments.
The researchers found that average out-of-pocket spending for the 2016-2019 study period for these respiratory hospitalizations was $1,961 for patients with consumer-directed plans versus $1,653 for patients in traditional, usually smaller-deductible plans.
The out-of-pocket cost gap was lowest for older patients age 56 to 64, and greatest -- $2,237 vs. $1,685 -- for patients 21 and younger. The analysis was not designed to examine why the cost gap varied inversely with patient age, but one possible explanation proposed by the researchers was that, since younger patients are healthier on average, their hospitalizations may reflect more serious and thus more costly illness.
Journal Reference: Matthew D. Eisenberg, Colleen L. Barry, Cameron Schilling, Alene Kennedy-Hendricks. Financial Risk for COVID-19-like Respi- ratory Hospitalizations in Consumer-Directed Health Plans, American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.05.008
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @05:38PM (86 children)
I just received a letter from my insurance company informing me that my premiums would be increasing ~18% next year, from ~USD$740/month to ~USD$900/month.
Note that my plan is for a single individual and I have a USD$600 deductible.
Thank God for freedom!*
USA! USA! USA!
*That's sarcasm, in case you are Poe's Law challenged, dear reader.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @05:47PM (30 children)
Take that $10k/yr and save or invest it instead. Imagine how much extra money you would have if you and your parents had done this.
Health insurance is for idiots and people trying to avoid taxes. And you morons want to force us to buy into the scam.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @05:53PM (27 children)
Yeah, that way I can just file for bankruptcy when I need surgery (in 2017 I had spine surgery which, all told, would have cost me > USD$50,000 without insurance) or get hit by a bus [pix11.com].
Because I'm not a sociopath, I sincerely hope you don't find yourself in that situation. But if you do, remember this conversation, friend.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @06:42PM (12 children)
Or you can take those saved tens of thousands of dollars and go on a 'medical tourism' trip for a tiny fraction of the cost. And the quality tends to be comparable. Most doctors are western trained and the tourist hospitals take their care very seriously since it's a huge source of revenue and a bad incident or two can completely destroy the entire business. If you don't know what it's like you might picture backwoods shack in Tiuana where 'Doc' comes out with some bloody gloves and yells "NEXT!" In reality it's more like a resort hotel that offers medical care. The after-treatment care will also be orders of magnitudes more pleasant with, again, comparable quality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @06:51PM (4 children)
I'd rather work towards a single-payer healthcare system like *civilized* countries have.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @10:32PM
It's not mutually exclusive. Idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @07:09AM (2 children)
The problem you face with single payer is what's happening in the UK and many other nations at the moment. In times past these countries were mostly very healthy (relative to the US) and full of a population that was largely productively employed and also mostly pretty ideologically homogeneous. In these sort of the situations social programs can work really well. You have great resources both now and the foreseeable future, people willing to work for the common cause, and costs are not especially high. But as the countries become more diverse and more unhealthy they begin to resemble the US more and more.
And now they're facing the same problems we've had for decades. You have large chunks of the population that are not productively employed and never will be, substantial social divides turning various groups against one another, and an aging/fattening/sickening population who cost more and more to keep alive each year. There is also the issue of plummeting fertility which means you have fewer and fewer people working for the next generation. Solving this through immigration is a nonstarter since in contemporary times we're increasingly just attracting poor immigrants who are themselves going to end up being a burden on the overall system (in spite of an overall economic net gain through growing consumption) while also furthering those social divides.
In modern times single payer is increasingly resulting in massive waiting lists, overworked doctors, and a reduced quality of care. And even these systems are not especially sustainable. Seriously, just take your cash and go to Thailand, Malaysia, or any of the many countries that offer high quality medical tourism. Even India is starting to see a burgeoning and very high quality medical tourism industry.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:14PM
The problem in the UK is the UK Gov (both Labour and Tory) trying to gradually sell off the NHS to cronies to enrich a few. Or cripple it to make more excuses to sell it.
They have not been increasing the spending: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29 [ons.gov.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:16PM
And yet there is plenty of resources to ensure the top 1% own 50% of everything in this country. The 99% will just have to scrimp and save over the remaining peanuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:31PM
Not anymore. Comprehensive population imprisonment plans mean you can't take a plane and leave the country anymore. You can't even go across the Canadian border anymore due to a bilateral agreement. Unless you want to become an essential truck driver.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:45AM (4 children)
Righto, take your respirator and oxygen tank keeping you alive while covided, and go on 'medical tourism'.
Any other great ideas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:47AM
The correct treatment is HDIV vitamin c and hbot. Both already cheap and safe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @03:42AM
Yeah, how do I turn the sonar off? Also, WTF is the distance in blindsight mode?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @07:15AM (1 child)
You go on medical tourism for serious and extremely costly one-off treatment like spinal surgery. The cost of treatment for COVID in the US, dumb as it is, is less than you'd pay on travel costs alone.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 17 2020, @08:28AM
Breaking: travel costs skyrocket in US [time.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @04:15PM
And then you are that 1 in X whose care is messed up. Good luck getting liability reimbursement for that! :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:04PM (13 children)
You should have way more than $50k saved from not giving it away to scammers by the time you are an adult.
And the correct thing to do is get sensible insurance with very low premium but high deductible for whatever you can't cover. Eg, if you have $100k saved for health issues then you want insurance with $100k deductible and like $100/yr premium.
Healthcare is just like education. It used to be cheap and valuable but its been turned into something insanely expensive and nearly worthless. And people want to keep doing the thing that caused it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:19PM (1 child)
I know a nickel isn't worth a dime anymore, but it took me until ~26 to have $50k saved.
Super! Where can I find such insurance? I haven't found conditions like those before, either because state insurance commissions prohibit them, or more likely because insurance companies choose not to run that business. Because after all, in the US health insurance is not really insurance, but a membership in a discount club that makes the blood test cost $50 copay instead of $3000.
Couldn't have turned into anything else when business interests, politics and not having a choice came together.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:35PM
> I know a nickel isn't worth a dime anymore, but it took me until ~26 to have $50k saved.
How much did your parents squander to the insurance company in your name?
> Super! Where can I find such insurance? I haven't found conditions like those before, either because state insurance commissions prohibit them, or more likely because insurance companies choose not to run that business.
Yep, no real health insurance is available. Only scams. You will have to try to negotiate an individualized contract with some organization that has deep pockets.
> Couldn't have turned into anything else when business interests, politics and not having a choice came together.
Apparently this is what professors are saying these days:
https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1272925884018819072 [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:36PM (9 children)
Yeah! because employer-provided health insurance is immediately convertible to cash on demand, right?
Not only that, whatever proportion of that *instant* cash covers me as a child is immediately invested *in my name* so I can use it in the future.
Most Americans (as I did for most of my life) get their health insurance through their (or their parents') employer. While I never went to my boss and said, "insurance is such a scam. Pay me the cash instead and I'll worry about my own health," I'm pretty sure of the response I'd get after he or she stopped *laughing*.
You're a disingenuous prick. Fuck off.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:45PM (1 child)
No one is forcing you to get your health insurance through your employer. Just say you have your own insurance so you dont need it. It really isnt difficult. Not sure why anyone would want their health linked to their job either. It is just a scheme to avoid taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @04:21PM
Yes. The employer gains a benefit from offering it, which is one of the reasons they do offer it. You also gain a benefit in that the money used to pay the premium is not taxed. It is, "a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect," so yes it is a scheme by the dictionary definition although not in the pejorative or devious sense you seem to apply to it.
Either your way or by insurance you roll the dice. Pay some now against future need or save some now and hope your future needs don't exhaust your funds. For me your plan would also have left me bankrupt or dead several years ago. (You don't do "medical tourism" when having an emergent coronary event, do you???)
It doesn't mean you don't have an idea with any merit. But it remains that one does have to stay lucky to profit by it. Me, I'd rather bet on being unlucky and not needing it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:06PM (6 children)
There's no point in engaging that A/C. He's an anti-vaxxer and a flat earther, so pointing out how everyone in the world except America has found a way of providing proper healthcare to the populace without "co-pays" and "deductibles" is wasting your time.
Just the statement:
shows what a fool he is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:54PM (5 children)
No point to hearing unfamiliar info and learning? You just want an echo chamber?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @10:13PM (4 children)
It's not about that at all. There's nothing to learn from lies and bullshit, except that we can now identify those spouting it.
And the ridiculous garbage being spouted above, from under the bridge, is just that.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @10:19PM (3 children)
Keep giving your money away to insurance companies then... It is only yourself and your family you are hurting.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:44PM (2 children)
Thanks for your fake concern for me and my family. I'll take that in the spirit it was offered.
And I'll trust my judgement over yours every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Because you've made it obvious that I'm much smarter, better read and more articulate than you.
I'm also not espousing ridiculous-on-its-face bullshit.
But please, go ahead and do whatever you want. I'm sure it will lead you to a sorry end, but it will be one of your own making.
I'm sorry that it sucks to be you. No. That's not true. I don't care one whit about you.
Toodles!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:49PM (1 child)
> But please, go ahead and do whatever you want.
So you dont want to force me to pay scammy insurance companies? Great, I want everyone to make their own decisions too.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @04:25PM
That AC doesn't. I do.
Tell you what... You keep buying mandatory insurance until you have enough saved up that I can be assured you will never be a financial burden to my taxes. Let's say $3,000,000. OK. $1,000,000 even in a decent interest-bearing account that you cannot touch for any reason except medical expense. Then I think you don't have to buy insurance anymore. Fair?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @03:44AM
Millennials are such pussies. In my day, we had $100k saved by 2nd grade, and we knew better than to blow it all on iPhones and doodads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @06:12PM (1 child)
only cowards, sell outs, idiots, or a combination thereof pay the federal income tax.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:11PM
Poor people pay taxes. Rich people [nytimes.com] do knot. [npr.org]
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @06:17PM
why would anyone pay for health insurance? you can prevent illness with proper nutrition and exercise. Anything serious they have to treat you then you can mail them $5 a month or something should that ever happen. Fuck Big Pharma and Big Health. I also have zero sympathy for costs going up for people who fund insurance companies. Insurance companies are scum who should be banished from the nation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:08PM (53 children)
Glad you're liking your Obamacare.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @07:30PM (52 children)
If I didn't have that, I'd be uninsurable via pre-existing conditions.
So, while (as I said during the debate over the ACA back in 2010) while the ACA wasn't anywhere near enough, it was Better Than Nothing™.
Your weak attempt at snark just goes to show how fucked up the US healthcare system is. I won't (although I have repeatedly done so in other discussions about the ACA here) get into all the varied reasons why a single-payer plan would be cheaper, with better outcomes for more people, and would eliminate people ending up *homeless* because they can't pay their medical bills, and just all around better for everyone except insurance companies and healthcare conglomerates. A good trade-off, if you ask me.
Why are you wasting time here anyway? Don't you have some anarcho-capitalist cock to suck?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @08:41PM (48 children)
When did more federal gov involvement make something cheaper?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:10PM (24 children)
When every other country in the world did it. Just because you can't seem to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:19PM (23 children)
So you can't think of a single time the US federal government became more involved in something and it became cheaper? I agree. I don't think this has ever happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:56PM (14 children)
On top of that.
Here is my story.
"I have a headache can you hand me my purse"
"oh sure" hands over purse
reaches in and pulls out a bottle of generic asprin
nurse scribbles on bit of paper
2 months later
400 dollar bill for handing my mom her purse.
One thing we can do is itemize all bills and put them on the internet. Full transparency. Only one person wants that apparently in our government because the AHCA is perfect and needs no changes.
Check your bills. Hospitals put extra shit on there all the time. Also never take the helicopter. The hospitals no longer own them. Never take the ambulance if you can help it. Some bright sparks use it as a taxi service so they have to have extras laying around to backup. Which costs lots of extra money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @10:08PM (1 child)
They do. I was admitted to the hospital a number of years ago when a doctor (wrongly) thought I might have MRSA [wikipedia.org]. I spent three days getting unnecessary IV antibiotics before the tests came back and, surprise, surprise, no MRSA.
When I saw the list of charges, I was surprised to find that not only was I in two different beds at the same time, but also I found out that I'd had a pap smear [mayoclinic.org]. Which is quite a trick, since being male, I don't have a cervix.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:49AM
Don't you want one? It can be arranged for the right money (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @10:10PM
Who said that? I've never heard *anyone* (except you, just now) say anything even close to that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:02AM (7 children)
Here is my story: A couple of years ago I got a call from Mrs PartTimeZombie telling me she'd fallen and broken her ankle.
By the time I got home the ambulance was there and she was admitted to hospital.
6 weeks and two operations later, I was still complaining about having to pay $4 an hour for parking to visit her.
That was my total "out of pocket" and that is how the entire civised world does healthcare, because it is cheaper and works better for everyone except insurance companies.
I'm sorry you have such dishonest system. Maybe you should consider emigration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:10AM (3 children)
Seems strange to ignore that you have paid taxes over the years for this service.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:17AM (1 child)
Who is ignoring it? That is entirely my point.
I don't have to worry about losing my house because of an accident. You do.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:36AM
No I dont. People who gave all their money to insurance companies and live in houses they cant afford do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:29PM
And presumably you are not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @04:53AM (2 children)
Like most of the 'civilized world' which you mention require you to have specialized skills, a masters degree, or a lot of money in order to give you a working or resident visa. Furthermore, many explicitly state you will have to pay for any medical care you recieve while there (the on-the ground realities may or may not be in line with that.) I don't remember exactly which countries I got that information from, but it was among norway, denmark, belgium, netherlands and a few other of the more prominent european countries.
Lots of other places have far lower scrutiny of immigrants, but also have fewer opportuntiies, more corruption, and questionable or limited first world medical care available.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 17 2020, @09:23AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:24PM
I'm sure it won't be a problem when I tell her I just want to get married so the state will pay for my herpes meds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @05:11AM (1 child)
I'll remember that for the next time I get asked.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:33PM
Don't forget to refuse non-generic drugs and bring your own gauze (much cheaper). Also, you should put out a tender and conduct interviews. And for God's sake, take your bleach!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @07:54PM
So... it's a little more complicated than that.
Your wife engaged the nurse. The nurse did an assessment of her, determined she was lucid and rational. Nurse probably looked at her skin tone and color, absence of sweat, mental attitude (was not screaming in pain nor experienced it). If nurse was competent she probably asked Mom to describe headache to ensure it wasn't migraine or burst aneurysm, and probably observed and or asked if there was any other symptoms with that. Mom decided to self medicate. Nurse agreed that this was acceptable (would not stop that in any event), but it does likely stop nurse from prescribing anything else at that time (assuming this was an advance practice nurse who can prescribe). Nurse may have also decided that no prescription from the nurse was warranted but the patient can self medicate so you're not charged another $25 for two whatever's. (Pills cost $.25, pharmacist who stocks it $5, nurse salary $3.75, lights and overhead $1.00. $15.00 because every person tries to make darn sure you are getting 50 mg of aspiring and not 30 mg codeine and liability insurance for when the nurse was wrong and you just died of OD and sue.)
Let's take it from a different profession point of view. You call over a plumber and describe that the pipe underneath your sink is leaking. Plumber looks at it and can see that it is indeed a small leak. You ask plumber to hand you a wrench. Plumber does so and you tighten the joint. Have you not still engaged the time and professional skill of that plumber even though you decided to fix it yourself?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:34PM (7 children)
I think we've already established the fact you have to live with the exploitative healthcare system you have because your government is run by and for corporate interests.
How do you think you wound up in the state you're in?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:59PM (6 children)
> you have to live with the exploitative healthcare system you have
I don't live with it. I stay as far away from it as possible. When there was that obamacare penalty I just paid it rather than take the "free" insurance.
> How do you think you wound up in the state you're in?
Idiots who think its a good idea to give the people/organizations who messed it up even more money and power.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:14AM (5 children)
That's nice, until you get sick, or have an accident and have to deal with $500,000 invoice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:24AM (4 children)
Look up chargemaster, no one pays those prices. The real price is 50-99% less. Also taxes already pay for emergency care.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:20AM (2 children)
So I looked up Chargemaster, but there was no useful information, so I did another search, and found this: [worldpopulationreview.com]
So why don't you tell me again how those 1 million bankrupt Americans every year are just doing it wrong?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @05:00AM (1 child)
You obviously did not, because the Zero-Click info on DDG would have taken you to the Wikipedia page for Chargemaster.
Why don't you just give up your attempts at trolling US politics as a foreigner from the other side of the world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:30PM
Because he or she is right, if you are in the United States. Just because you might be able to negotiate self-pay discounts from a practice's chargemaster does not mean that a catastrophic event still cannot result in over $50,000 of discounted charges you'll be liable for from one hospitalization. Just because you can negotiate prices does not mean that people have to file bankruptcy because of medical conditions [nih.gov] every year. That number is in the hundreds of thousands [cnbc.com]. Per year. Stop thinking you've found some kind of magic bullet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @05:37AM
By law, someone literally has to pay those prices within a certain percentage listed on the CDM, so your claim of "no one pays it" is just factually incorrect. In addition, even though the public insures against the loss of emergency care, that covers way less than most people think it does and in no way legally absolves you of having to pay the hospital for your care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:51PM (12 children)
Plan overhead (~2%) and lower payments to providers makes Medicare (the US version) many times less expensive than private insurance.
You're just spouting a bunch of bullshit that your anarcho-capitalist corporate masters drill into you while you gargle their jizz. Good times!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @10:17PM (8 children)
> Plan overhead (~2%) and lower payments to providers makes Medicare (the US version) many times less expensive than private insurance.
Medicare was started in 1966 and now spends $740 billion/year on 60 million people. That is $12k per person per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Financing [wikipedia.org]
Before medicare the cost was ~$150 per person per year (2010 dollars). So lets say its $300 in 2020 dollars. Then it costs ~40x more with medicare than without.
https://www.businessinsider.com/healthcare-costs-have-exploded-since-1960-2014-4?op=1 [businessinsider.com]
So I don't see this decrease in expense that you claim. Do you mean the individual pays less with the taxpayer and debt covering the rest?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:13PM
But the US is 40x healthier now compared to 1960.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:20PM (1 child)
In order to really decrease the costs, we'll have to socialize the part that keeps jacking up the charges as well, but $12K per person for the group with the highest medical needs on average is actually a savings.
People in their 20s and 30s (a group with low medical needs on average) pay nearly that much for a great deal less healthcare.
In countries where they finished the job rather than the half measures in the U.S., costs are less than half those in the U.S.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:28PM
The US has the reserve currency so I wouldnt really compare costs to other counties. Also they falsify their budget so you cant tell if the money spent on healthcare was actually spent on spying, bioweapons, etc.
https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/ [solari.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:49PM (3 children)
Your blather about increased medical costs (which have increased much faster than inflation), while true, is orthogonal* to that statement.
You're just parroting back a bunch of talking points because you apparently don't have an original thought in your head.
More's the pity.
*If you're having problems with the longer words, try here [dictionary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:55PM (2 children)
> Your blather about increased medical costs (which have increased much faster than inflation), while true, is orthogonal* to that statement.
Here is the original statement: "When did more federal gov involvement make something cheaper?"
So you agree that the comparison of medicare to private is orthogonal to the original topic of discussion (increasing government intervention making something cheaper). Yes, I knew that when I responded, and was sure to respond to the original topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:14AM (1 child)
I'm going to assume you're stupid rather than trolling and explain.
No. The fact that medical costs have increased faster than inflation over the last fifty years is orthogonal to whether or not something can be done more cheaply by government
That the Medicare (government) program has overhead many times lower than private insurance, and is, in fact much cheaper is *directly* related to the question of whether or not government can do something less expensively than the private sector, in that the Medicare program does just that.
It is, in fact, specifically answering the question asked. Much more so than any comparison of current vs. historical medical costs.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:28AM
No one mentioned whether the government can do something cheaper. Stop bringing up semirelated stuff.
Fact is that healthcare is about 40x more expensive now than before medicare. So thats not an example of the gov getting involved then something getting cheaper.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 17 2020, @09:37AM
By the early 70s, even Nixon realised this was unsustainable, so he tried to do something about it, but bizarrely he thought the way to make it sustainable was by trying to sustain it. Everyone since then just followed his lead. Go put your mike next to your speakers - how you liking that feedback?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:05PM (2 children)
There's lower overhead with Medicare, but that private insurance overhead also equals oversight, so I think what's being missed is that more unnecessary testing gets done with Medicare since they know they won't get denied. Private insurance companies have a strong incentive to deny claims for bogus shit. Medicare doesn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:22PM
AFAIK Medicare has strong limits on what treatments can be billed by hospitals for what condition. There are so many customers on Medicare that there are optimized processes in hospitals to deal with it.
Private insurers on the other hand can deny claims for random stuff, but then the patient is still on the hook to the provider.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:32PM
There. FTFY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:35PM (8 children)
For any sort of health insurance, the provider has a certain amount of revenue, which can be in the form of premiums, subsidies, and taxes. A portion of that money is then used to pay for treatments received by their customers. There are also operating costs to pay employee salaries, maintenance of facilities, equipment and supplies, and things like that. These costs are incurred regardless of whether health expenses are covered by an HMO or by the government. The ability to pay for treatments depends on the amount of revenue and how much of that is left after paying other expenses.
For government-provided health care, the sum of operating expenses and treatments that are covered should be equal to the revenue. It should break even. But for an HMO, the goal is not to break even but to make a profit. Some of those profits are taxed. A portion of the profit is retained for future investments and expenses. This can go toward covering operating costs when revenue decreases or to paying for capital improvements, but often is used to finance mergers and acquisitions, which involves paying shareholders. Many companies also pay a portion of the profits as shareholder dividends. Any profit made by an HMO is money that's not going to pay for medical treatments for its customers. Because the government does not expect or need to be profitable, just to break even, more money is inherently available to pay for patients to be treated.
Simply put, why is it a good thing that some revenue is diverted to pay shareholders when it could be going to pay for medical treatments for customers? This is not an issue with government-provided health coverage.
It's also worth noting that HMOs aren't the only place where shareholders get paid. Many hospitals have shareholders. Those hospitals purchase drugs and medical equipment from other companies. Pharmaceutical companies have shareholders and many pay dividends. Medical equipment manufacturers also have shareholders. So there are multiple steps at which shareholders get paid. Every time shareholders get paid, either the costs of treatment increase or the portion of treatments that are covered goes down.
Medical treatment is a necessity. Why should this necessity require paying shareholders at multiple levels?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:42PM (7 children)
> For government-provided health care, the sum of operating expenses and treatments that are covered should be equal to the revenue. It should break even.
This isn't how government budgeting works. You get allocated a certain amount for the year and if any is left over you get less the next year. So a successful department/etc is one that manages to spend as much as possible, to show the need for a bigger budget (that comes with increased staff and political power). Ones that don't do this get starved of funding and lose power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:01AM (2 children)
While government agencies typically do operate in that manner, that isn't actually how medicare operates. I recommend you learn about the medicare trust fund [taxpolicycenter.org] and how it works. There are a certain amount of assets in the medicare trust fund, which can be used to cover expenses and treatments in later years if income drops below expenditures. Operating at a surplus for a year does not automatically decrease the funding for medicare the following year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:02AM (1 child)
And what is held in this trust fund?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @02:32AM
https://smartasset.com/taxes/what-are-medicare-taxes [smartasset.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:05AM (3 children)
I guess you've never worked for a large corporation. That's *exactly* how things work in a big company.
Back in the mid 1990s I was (among other things) a Unix evangelist at the corporate headquarters of a Fortune 50 company. I would work with various business units to implement Unix-based systems to support their analytical functions.
I would give presentations every couple months and learned very quickly that the term "increased productivity" was a big no no. Why? Because if productivity increased, that means less headcount would be required and, hence a smaller budget. And *every single exec* with their own budget would have none of that.
Even more egregious, the company had spent ~USD$300 million developing a new customer service platform including ~USD$100 million worth of Unix boxes and peripherals for the project. As they finished the pilot, they realized it would cost them USD$100 million/year to manage and support the new environment, so it was scrapped.
But we still had ~USD$100 million in equipment sitting in warehouses.
As such, when planning/implementing new Unix installations for various business units, I always encouraged the business unit to use the already purchased equipment. All they had to do was put the depreciation on their budget lines and the corporation as a whole wouldn't have to spend any more money.
But the vendor (in this case, IBM) was offering sufficient discounts on new equipment that meant less of a hit on the business unit's budget. What did those execs do Every. Single. Time? They chose to purchase new equipment rather than take the depreciation hit from using already purchased equipment sitting idle in warehouses.
The upshot was that money was going out of the company rather than maximizing the resources *already paid for* by another business unit.
Repeat: This was not any government. This was a Fortune 50 company.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:14AM (2 children)
> I guess you've never worked for a large corporation. That's *exactly* how things work in a big company.
I never said it didnt work like that in all large organizations. The larger they are, the worse it gets. US government is the largest and worst offender.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @12:25AM (1 child)
I hate to break it to you, but the insurance companies and healthcare conglomerates are all large organizations. The difference is that the government doesn't need to show a profit.
That profit takes funds *directly* away from treating patients.
Which is why other nations that have private insurance (Germany is a notable example) systems have laws forbidding insurance companies from making a profit.
Oops.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:33AM
Yes, those large organizations are also bad and inefficient. I want nothing to do with any of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @06:49PM
Defense of my home from invasion by China or Russia. Pretty sure the costs of the standing armed forces are a little more expensive than my taxes are.
Ability for me to go to four hundred square miles of forest and go walking. Pretty sure the cost of that is more than my taxes pay.
Ability for me to travel from here at my work to home. Pretty sure the three miles of paved and pretty well-maintained asphalt would be more expensive than the taxes I pay.
You can't convince me (vouchers or no) that privatizing all education would result in cheaper costs of education, sorry. Public schools are cheaper.
I have access to a library of several thousand printed books and many more ebooks, much more than I can ever read or afford.
I have clean and potable water on tap, and my sewage wastes are taken away without my worrying about them past my property line. (That despite everything Trump is trying to do...)
If I do end up without insurance and homeless and somebody cracks me over the head with a baseball bat I don't have to worry that the emergency room is going to wait until I prove I have the ability to pay them.
So honestly, you sound a lot like the protestors in Monty Python's Life of Brian. "But apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"
There's a long way to go, to. But let's first look at what we have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:11PM (2 children)
"Don't you have some anarcho-capitalist cock to suck?"
They never stop, that is why they can only communicate via text.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:34PM
Gargle gargle! Your corporate masters' jizz is tasty, huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @06:05PM
Just curious, who is "they" and *how else* might one communicate on a text-based discussion site?
This ought to be amusing.