SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Friday April 19 2019, @08:11PM
from the Death-is-cheap-life-is-expensive-dept dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'This is how expensive it is to attempt suicide': Patient’s bill goes viral
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 84 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Logicians have but ill defined
As rational the human kind.
Logic, they say, belongs to man,
But let them prove it if they can.
-- Oliver Goldsmith
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @12:34PM (4 children)
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)
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
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)
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: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:32PM
Thanks for the clarification. That's how I interpreted it (although I've had some help as I know a few folks in Oz), but it may not have been clear to all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr