This is what's wrong with healthcare.

[JulesMaximus]

I handle our finances pretty well -- my wife and kids and I do not live extravagantly nor excessively by any means (small house, single car, rarely dine out or even go on vacations). We are CONTINUOUSLY buried under a never-ending onslaught of medical bills though. It is financially devastating and in turn just puts way undue stress on us and our marriage and our family as a whole. And there is nothing you can do about the bills -- if we're hurt or sick, what are our choices beside medical attention at the pricetags they charge us with?

Universal healthcare?

 

[Imported]

I cut my finger, kind of bad. Went to the emergency room and got 8 stitches.

Fortunately the ER wasn't busy so I was out in about an hour, about 10 minutes of which was actual medical treatment (clean, stitch, bandage).

The bill was $3,745.15. How can this be? That's nuts!

This happened to me last year but they didn't even stitch it up, just applied superglue. I tried doing urgent care (cheaper) but they told me to go to ER. WTF? The bill was like $1700 for superglue.. thank god my insurance covered all but $100.

I now have superglue on hand for any cuts and will only go to the ER if I'm dying. My primary physician almost always has appointments available the next day so I'm much better off trying to endure anything til the appointment and its $20 copay.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Somebody has to pay for all the people that go to the ER with no insurance and no intention to pay for it, and who make so little that it's barely worth garnishing their wages.
That somebody is you. And me.

So what's up with stitches being so much cheaper during your grandfather's generation or so, when far fewer people had insurance coverage?

Ah...I see! It's Jose's fault (again), you're saying? So, Jose from Tijuana is the reason his 10mins in the ER cost $3,800?

lol, defensive and wrong.

 

[nakedfrog]

So what's up with stitches being so much cheaper during your grandfather's generation or so, when far fewer people had insurance coverage?

I'm going to call this a red herring.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm going to call this a red herring.

Elaborate. I'm curious how the uninsured are responsible for a 3-5x increase in hospital costs when they made up roughly 20% of the population over the last few decades. Do the uninsured just happen to require more expensive treatments for whatever reason?

 

[Anubis]

So what's up with stitches being so much cheaper during your grandfather's generation or so, when far fewer people had insurance coverage?

much less administrative overhead

 

[Fanatical Meat]

much less administrative overhead

Just another excuse for inaction. There isn't that much more overhead.

 

[OutHouse]

OP no urgent care facilities around you?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

much less administrative overhead

What I'm reading is that administrative overhead makes up about 20% of medical costs in the USA; keep in mind that there will always be some percentage required to be spent on overhead, no matter how efficient a system is. That doesn't nearly make up for the total increase in medical costs.

 

[UnklSnappy]

I cut my finger, kind of bad. Went to the emergency room and got 8 stitches.

Fortunately the ER wasn't busy so I was out in about an hour, about 10 minutes of which was actual medical treatment (clean, stitch, bandage).

The bill was $3,745.15. How can this be? That's nuts!

Makes the 56k for my heart attack seem like a bargain.Couple of stents and 5 days in the hospital. Of course that's not what they were paid. Insurance paid 27k and I paid 2.5k.
I can't complain, I'm alive.

 

[nakedfrog]

Elaborate. I'm curious how the uninsured are responsible for a 3-5x increase in hospital costs when they made up roughly 20% of the population over the last few decades. Do the uninsured just happen to require more expensive treatments for whatever reason?

Litigation is obviously a factor, overhead as mentioned, regulations... there have been so many changes in the health care system in the past fifty years that this simply isn't a valid comparison.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Litigation is obviously a factor, overhead as mentioned, regulations... there have been so many changes in the health care system in the past fifty years that this simply isn't a valid comparison.

So what you're saying is that uninsured patients driving up costs, as you mentioned in your original post, is only a small part to explain increasing healthcare costs on the whole?

Without looking into specifics, I would be inclined to agree that litigation and regulations are also a significant factor. The AMA limiting the number of doctors produced every year to keep professional incomes much higher than the rest of the world, for example. Of course, that comes at a cost of more mediocre doctors out and about, but if people are willing to go to Mexico or India for cheaper prices, I'd say that cost is probably worth it, at least to bring things like stitches back to the three-figure ballpark.

 

[local]

:thumbsup: Nice! That's cheaper than most insurance plans.

Definitely cheaper than mine, $160/week...

 

[nakedfrog]

So what you're saying is that uninsured patients driving up costs, as you mentioned in your original post, is only a small part to explain increasing healthcare costs on the whole?

Without looking into specifics, I would be inclined to agree that litigation and regulations are also a significant factor. The AMA limiting the number of doctors produced every year to keep professional incomes much higher than the rest of the world, for example. Of course, that comes at a cost of more mediocre doctors out and about, but if people are willing to go to Mexico or India for cheaper prices, I'd say that cost is probably worth it, at least to bring things like stitches back to the three-figure ballpark.

I guess it depends what you mean by small. I think it's a significant factor, based on my experience over the past decade.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I guess it depends what you mean by small. I think it's a significant factor, based on my experience over the past decade.

I just don't understand the math behind it. Let's say you have five children, and all of them are required to have a puppy or suffer a miserable childhood. The children only earn $1 a week selling lemonade, and a puppy is $100. Therefore, the parents of the children also cover the costs of a puppy so that the children can have one. Unfortunately, Jimmy is homeless and doesn't have parents to give him a puppy. By law, puppy stores are required to give all children puppies, so if the puppy store receives $400 cash and gives out $500 in puppies, they're losing money. Therefore, they have to charge the four children with parents $125 per puppy, and Jimmy gets his puppy paid for by his peers and their parents, raising the price of puppies. I can accept that. But how could this scenario be used to justify puppy stores charging $400 per puppy? Increasing healthcare costs seem way out of line compared to the number of people uninsured, especially when those uninsured has been roughly consistent over the past few decades.

EDIT: See here, when the government first started tracking the percent of those uninsured in 1987. It's damn flat. Maybe there are a lot of complexities in terms of the type of coverage, but it still seems like a stretch to put much of the blame on the minority of people uninsured.

 

[MajinCry]

I've chronic nausea; had every damn pill, test, scan, etc, with a couple more things lined up. One of 'em is going to be eating a bowl of radioactive goop, another is me swallowin' a pill with a camera in it.

Ain't paid a dime, and thank Crom fer that; I've not got a penny in me pockets.

Socialist healthcare is mighty handy.

 

[DCal430]

Yep we have a big problem, I want to the ER once for an eye issue. Never even saw a doctor, only the nurse and the ER billed my Insurance company like $8,000 for 20 minutes with a nurse, and some medication. The Insurance company ended up paying like $6,000 of it.

What is funny when they released me from the ER they told me to go to the Opthalmology department in 2 hours and I doctor will see me. I had to return to the Opthalmology department every other day for like a week. I bet all of these visits to the Opthalmology department were cheaper than the ER visit.

 

[ioni]

So get rid of the BS made up price and charge the actual market price. Then more people might pay rather than saying screw this, I'm not paying this crazy bill. You don't see this crap in the healthcare of other developed countries. Charge a fair price and more people will use and pay.

J.C. Penny's tried this a few years ago and it failed miserably. The masses want to think they are getting a deal.

 

[DCal430]

What is also funny is a few years later I went to the ER for chest pains and thought I was having a heart attack, turns out it was a panic attack, I saw a doctor and they did all kinds of test. The bill was about 4,000 and the Insurance paid like $2,500.

The billing difference makes no sense, one case I saw a doctor and did all kinds of test, the other was just a nurse looking at my eye and giving me some eye drops. Yet the bill was much higher with only a nurse.

 

[Slew Foot]

Without looking into specifics, I would be inclined to agree that litigation and regulations are also a significant factor. The AMA limiting the number of doctors produced every year to keep professional incomes much higher than the rest of the world, for example. Of course, that comes at a cost of more mediocre doctors out and about, but if people are willing to go to Mexico or India for cheaper prices, I'd say that cost is probably worth it, at least to bring things like stitches back to the three-figure ballpark.

LOL, you stupid

 

[HamburgerBoy]

LOL, you stupid

you doctor (amirite?)