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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday April 19 2019, @09:01PM (42 children)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday April 19 2019, @09:01PM (#832291)

    He only had to pay US$2,850 thanks to his insurance.

    From the article I get the vibe that he is one of those people who tried to opt out because they wanted the attention. And now he has it.

    If anyone knows more background on this case that indicates I'm wrong please let me know. Thanks

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday April 19 2019, @09:20PM (40 children)

    He only had to pay US$2,850 thanks to his insurance.

    I see your point. At the same time, the double-dealing and sometimes outright lies about what things "cost," especially in hospital environments is way out of control.

    Back in 2009, I was admitted to the hospital (a doctor --incorrectly-- theorized that I might have MRSA [wikipedia.org]) for testing and intravenous antibiotics.

    After three days, the tests came back negative for MRSA and I was discharged.

    I had to pay something like USD$150-200 in charges, but I nearly fell on the floor when I saw the "explanation of benefits" (EOB) for my hospital stay.

    The total "cost" was ~USD$10,000.00. However, those costs included stays in two separate hospital rooms *at the same time*, as well as a pap smear [wikipedia.org].

    Given that I have only one body and, more interestingly, as a male, no cervix, I was rather surprised at such charges.

    I contacted the insurance company and they hemmed and hawed about it, finally telling me not to worry since I didn't have to pay for it. I persisted, saying that this was outright fraud and healthcare was already too expensive to allow this to happen.

    Finally, I was invited to a conference call with the insurance company and an accounts payable person from the hospital. The insurance person and the hospital person talked about the contract and its term in code for a while, until I demanded an explanation.

    It turns out that the contract between the insurance company and the hospital stated that regardless of condition, hospital admissions were reimbursed by the insurance company at USD$1,500/day.

    All the stuff on the EOB was just there to obscure the fact that the actual costs weren't 500% more than was claimed. Claiming such costs gives the hospital cover when outrageously overcharging the uninsured and gives the insurance company cover to say "look how much money you saved!"

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

    *Note that single-payer does *not* mean "the government pays everything." It means that there's single entity that pays healthcare providers and collects premiums. Sure, there will be those who are subsidized, but we already have that and it's called Medicaid.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 19 2019, @09:32PM (14 children)

      Oops. My math is bad today.

      All the stuff on the EOB was just there to obscure the fact that the actual costs weren't 500% more than was claimed. Claiming such costs gives the hospital cover when outrageously overcharging the uninsured and gives the insurance company cover to say "look how much money you saved!"

      That 500% figure was 10,000 divided by 1,500 (per diem) rather than 10,000 divided by 4,500 (per diem * 3). So I should have said "more than 100% more" instead of 500%. My apologies for any confusion or annoyance caused.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @09:36PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @09:36PM (#832305)

        "Your bill will be thaaat many dollars, if you could just stick your tattoo in that shit hyuhyuhyuh."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @09:43PM (12 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @09:43PM (#832308)

          "Your bill will be thaaat many dollars, if you could just stick your tattoo in that shit hyuhyuhyuh."

          What? Perhaps you could post again when you sober up, as I have no idea what you're blathering on about.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @10:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @10:10PM (#832331)

            Where's your tattoo? Why come you don't have a tattoo?

            You're an unscanable.

            UNSCANABLE!

            (I'm not the previous AC...)

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @10:47PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @10:47PM (#832345)

            It's a quote from a documentary about the future of the USA.

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday April 19 2019, @11:13PM (9 children)

              It's obviously not a documentary. At best, it's speculative fiction.

              Are you going to tell me next that Harrison Bergeron is a "documentary of the future" too?

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday April 20 2019, @02:47AM (5 children)

                by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 20 2019, @02:47AM (#832430) Journal

                I always describe it as "If Nostradamus wrote a sci-fi"

                --
                В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
                • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:17AM (4 children)

                  by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:17AM (#832435) Homepage Journal

                  Since no one else has bothered, care to share what "it" might be?

                  Thanks

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:14PM (2 children)

                    by deimtee (3272) on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:14PM (#832519) Journal
                    --
                    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:09PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:09PM (#832594)

                    The movie is called "Idiocracy". A sadly close approximation of where we could be in 500 years.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:13PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:13PM (#832633)

                Jesus christ lighten up. That is the name of my new movie about the real rapture. Jesus was a hippy in the 60s but there were too many long haired bearded dudes. I will tell his story!

                • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:26PM

                  Jesus christ lighten up.

                  Firstly, that's not my name.

                  Secondly, I'm about to eat a heavy dinner, so that's not happening tonight either.

                  But I do appreciate your suggestion. Thank you!

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 3, Funny) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:29PM

                  Damn it! You added useful information after the first sentence! Argh!

                  What is wrong with you? You're a sadist, I tell you! Making people read stuff in order to understand things. You should be ashamed of yourself!

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @09:54PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @09:54PM (#832319)

      Are you a millennial? They may have done the cervix exam to see where you were on the gender spectrum that day. This is why it is better to select either Male or Female on the admissions paperwork instead of writing "gender is a social construct".

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 19 2019, @10:43PM (7 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday April 19 2019, @10:43PM (#832343) Journal

        Wasn't it the professors in the 70s who started that line? That would make it a Boomer thing, maybe a Gen-X thing, but not a Millennial thing. Just a friendly (for me...) reminder from your local cisgender lesbian :)

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @11:22PM (#832363)

          Professors may have developed this nuttiness, but millennials put it into production.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 19 2019, @11:59PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 19 2019, @11:59PM (#832375) Journal

            Professors may have developed this nuttiness, but millennials put it into reproduction.

            FTFY.
            The professors of the '60-'70-ies developed contraceptives and allowed abortions as a way to deal with the nuttiness [wikipedia.org].
            The health system in US made that expensive and the religious nuts (almost) made it illegal - don't blame the millenials.

            (large grin)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:09AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:09AM (#832489)

          <sarcasm>
          Now, dear, how can you be sure you are a lesbian?
          You could be confused.
          Maybe you need to experience straight sex with a man to put you right.
          Surely a few goes in the sack will just sort this out.
          </sarcasm>

          (note for the sick people in the crowd: they use to do this to lesbians to 'fix' them)

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:37PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:37PM (#832530) Journal

            "They" STILL do it, and worse, in plenty of places. As to how I know...I tried with a guy. It didn't work. It wasn't even gross so much as "wait, what? this is like kissing a building or something why the hell am I doing this?"

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Webweasel on Saturday April 20 2019, @01:54PM (2 children)

            by Webweasel (567) on Saturday April 20 2019, @01:54PM (#832567) Homepage Journal

            Have you actually met or seen any real lesbians?

            The MAJORITY are that way because they are so damn ugly no one will fuck them. Have actually watched a chick over 10 years (facial deformity) beg men for sex. Eventually she gave up, got fat and is now a lesbian.

            Bring it on lesbians. You can insult me all you want, you know its true.

            --
            Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:30PM (#832641)

              Here is poor little me who has met more than a few lesbians I wished were straight. Ah well, we can't all be hateful shits so I opted against murdering them for not giving me the sex I deserved!! /s cause this is SN

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @05:00PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @05:00PM (#833452)

              I have known lesbians of varying levels of attractiveness. Some of them were downright hot.

              ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM ACT LIKE HAZUKI.
              I don't think hazuki is trans or lesbian.
              Hazuki acts like a teenage virgin trying to catfish a lesbian in some totally inappropriate space

              "Hey everyone I'm a lesbian!! LESBIAN OVER HERE!!! Lesbian searching for k00l-space-GIRL-friend for a GIRL. Btw I am the GIRL your mother warned you about. Unless you are a guy... because uhm I'm the GIRL your mother warned you about... if you came out to your mother and you are ALSO A GIRL LIKE I AM. (With a vag like me.. because i like to eat vag)
              But uhm I am a good upstanding and moral person too. Moral enough to moralize to random internet strangers all day. But also your mother warned you about me, if you're a lesbian, because I... uhm do too much good in the world!!!!! Watch out world!!! Good person... Ahem GOOD LESBIAN WITH A SWEET VAG COMING THROUGH! Anyone need some do gooding because I am such a good person that it makes your mama jealous!!

              Make up your fucking mind you asshole.

              I'm not the only one who thinks this:

              https://soylentnews.org/~Azuma+Hazuki/journal/4143 [soylentnews.org]
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 741
                  Male = 2736
                  Difference = 1995; 78.68%
                  Verdict: MALE

              https://soylentnews.org/~Azuma+Hazuki/journal/3949 [soylentnews.org]
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 540
                  Male = 1483
                  Difference = 943; 73.3%
                  Verdict: MALE

              https://soylentnews.org/~Azuma+Hazuki/journal/3790 [soylentnews.org]
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 1064
                  Male = 1641
                  Difference = 577; 60.66%
                  Verdict: MALE

              ---FOR COMPARISON---

              Arnold Schwarzenegger
              https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/11/opinions/arnold-schwarzenegger-fitness-takes-work-dont-give-up/index.html [cnn.com]
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 1306
                  Male = 1630
                  Difference = 324; 55.51%
                  Verdict: Weak MALE
              (lol yes it really called arnold a weak male match. Next I’ll do Donald Trump but all of his larger bodies of text appear to be written by other people than his shorter works that were more consistent. I’m sure these were proofread so I’ll use a random collection minus covfee)

              Donald Trump Sample 1
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 984
                  Male = 1715
                  Difference = 731; 63.54%
                  Verdict: MALE

              Donald Trump Sample 2
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 265
                  Male = 342
                  Difference = 77; 56.34%
                  Verdict: Weak MALE

              Donald Trump Sample 3
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 189
                  Male = 150
                  Difference = -39; 44.24%
                  Verdict: Weak FEMALE

              Donald Trump Sample 4
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 116
                  Male = 160
                  Difference = 44; 57.97%
                  Verdict: Weak MALE

              So far the formal writing results have been pretty boring. I think this is interesting because even though the algorithm is totally confused it knows only a dude would publish something like this in a formal forum.

              Donald Trump Sample 4 (Formal)

              Genre: Formal
                  Female = 5
                  Male = 76
                  Difference = 71; 93.82%
                  Verdict: MALE

              Rosanne Barr Sample of short quotes
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 237
                  Male = 331
                  Difference = 94; 58.27%
                  Verdict: Weak MALE
              (lol)

              Ellen Degeneres
              Sample 1
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 510
                  Male = 235
                  Difference = -275; 31.54%
                  Verdict: FEMALE
              Sample 2
              Genre: Informal
                  Female = 596
                  Male = 202
                  Difference = -394; 25.31%
                  Verdict: FEMALE

    • (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."
      • (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.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:47PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:47PM (#832664)

      Yes, it does not have to be government. It could be for example Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is exactly what the doctor I had for 37 years wanted to have happen.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:33AM

    by ledow (5567) on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:33AM (#832501) Homepage

    So it was cheaper because he was already paying for his own and everyone else's treatments too? Amazing.

    And what if his insurance didn't cover self-inflicted conditions?

    P.S. That's still $2850 more than I will *ever* pay, in my entire life, for every bit of medical care, insurance, treatment or cover I ever require. With the possible exception of dentistry because you don't want to wait for that shit to fall into the "we will provide it for free because it's so serious" category.

    I'm not being funny, but $2850 is a significant sum, no. So someone who attempts to commit suicide, say because of massive outstanding debt and maybe they even lost their insurance, has to think about it going wrong and putting them in an even worse position. A worse position than attempting to kill yourself because of the financial problems you already face.

    Get the fuck off your high-horse and go look up what civilisation means. The guy's not looking for sympathy for himself... he's pointing out a ludicrous situation that's entirely the creation of the US healthcare system which is supposed to look after such people.

    Your doctors have a fucking lot to answer for, as regards their Hippocratic Oath.