Jump to content



Photo

Snake-bite victim socked with $55K bill

maryland two fang marks emergency medical tech anti-venom treatment insurance

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#61 Dinggus

Dinggus

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 05

Posted 15 August 2013 - 00:33

How is that working out?  They can't even agree on what it is even though they have already passed it.  They will delay it until after the election because it is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

I don't claim it.




#62 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 00:46

Yet another reminder of how broken the US healthcare system is.

 

This is actually a generic ###### statement meant to gather a kneejerk emotional response.

 

In all honesty, what is broken specifically is the insurance industry, not so much the actual healthcare part of it. Unfortunately, the government has allowed big business to step all over people and DRs due to a lot of things. Granted, 55k is a lot of money, until you break down how long she was there, what medication she used, etc. After all, if she HAD insurance, she would only be looking at a few hundred dollars - very reasonable indeed.

 

It's when people are uninsured that the collectors come a calling - as there is no one in the average persons corner to stop the madness and cover the hospitals costs. Overall, tort reform and insurance practices are where the broken parts are, yet they will NEVER be fixed right, as they are a powerful lobby.



#63 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 00:50

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.

 

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

 

Really, no difference, except in other countries, you HAVE to pay into it with taxes, and in the USA, well, until recently when a new law was passed, you had a real choice on whether you wanted to gamble with your health and savings accounts by not carrying insurance. Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.



#64 FlintyV

FlintyV

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 06
  • Location: Great Britain

Posted 15 August 2013 - 00:57

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

 

Really, no difference, except in other countries, you HAVE to pay into it with taxes, and in the USA, well, until recently when a new law was passed, you had a real choice on whether you wanted to gamble with your health and savings accounts by not carrying insurance. Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.

 

Wait, you just said it's not free at the point of service and then essentially contradicted yourself. 



#65 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 02:12

Wait, you just said it's not free at the point of service and then essentially contradicted yourself. 

 

no, no i did not.



#66 FlintyV

FlintyV

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 06
  • Location: Great Britain

Posted 15 August 2013 - 02:23

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.

 

 

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

 

..... Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.

 

So what exactly are you correcting FloatingFatMan on?



#67 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 02:25

 

 

 

 

So what exactly are you correcting FloatingFatMan on?

 

 

 

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.



#68 Mr Nom Nom's

Mr Nom Nom's

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 11
  • OS: OS X 10.9.2
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 'Space Grey' (64GB)

Posted 15 August 2013 - 02:38

I think the government needs to do more to hold the feet of hospitals to the fire. Fortunately, here in Philadelphia charity care is very common and good. My wife had to go to the ER for an issue a couple of years ago and due to some messes with the health insurance company she didn't have coverage. The hospital waived almost all the charges and allowed us to pay a flat $99 for the ER visit. People shouldn't be murdered financially over medical issues, but it is a hard chestnut to crack.

 

Why should the hospitals be punished when the problem goes a lot deeper - a society that sues almost at the drop of a hat thus necessitating high medical indemnity insurance for employees, people who aren't able to pay their bills meaning the cost is spread on all the ones who can pay the cost etc. In the end someone ends up paying, either directly through the unpaid for medical expenses being spread over other patients or to the insurance companies themselves. The real solution is to actually have a single payer healthcare system, to get rid of suing and negotiate medicine prices by putting downward pressure on suppliers through bulk purchasing and use of generics - but hey, something like that would be labelled as 'communist' and 'death panels' like what happened during the Obamacare debate (which btw I don't support because it was little more than a kick back to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry).



#69 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,066 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 09

Posted 15 August 2013 - 02:45

Why should the hospitals be punished when the problem goes a lot deeper - a society that sues almost at the drop of a hat thus necessitating high medical indemnity insurance for employees, people who aren't able to pay their bills meaning the cost is spread on all the ones who can pay the cost etc. In the end someone ends up paying, either directly through the unpaid for medical expenses being spread over other patients or to the insurance companies themselves. The real solution is to actually have a single payer healthcare system, to get rid of suing and negotiate medicine prices by putting downward pressure on suppliers through bulk purchasing and use of generics - but hey, something like that would be labelled as 'communist' and 'death panels' like what happened during the Obamacare debate (which btw I don't support because it was little more than a kick back to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry).

Insurance covers lawsuits....its called malpractice insurance.  The problem most definitely includes the hospital.

 

I've seen too many bills posted online of little paper cups for medicine being charged to the patient for hundreds of dollars.  How can anyone see that as acceptable?



#70 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 03:03

I've seen too many bills posted online of little paper cups for medicine being charged to the patient for hundreds of dollars.  How can anyone see that as acceptable?

 

Well, it isn't just the meds that are factored into the cost. There's the nurse that got it, the pharmacist that filled it, the maintenance that cleaned your vomit off the floor cause you were allergic to it, or didn't take with food, etc.

 

Why do people look at the cost and assume that it is unreasonable without factoring in all the things that had to happen for someone to get that pill.

 

Hospitals cover costs inside what they charge. Insurance understands this and builds in set costs that are 'acceptable' and billed. Even with reform, this would happen, except government (single payer ultimately) would stifle competition, and bring a stagnation even worse than what is happening now.

 

Reform would be nice though, just less government intrusion, and more codes and enforcement of practices and anti-fraud and lawsuits for frivolous reasons.



#71 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,382 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:41

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

Really, no difference, except in other countries, you HAVE to pay into it with taxes, and in the USA, well, until recently when a new law was passed, you had a real choice on whether you wanted to gamble with your health and savings accounts by not carrying insurance. Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.


How is that any different to what I said?

Our NHS is paid for in our taxes, but when we actually come to use it, it's free.

#72 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:50

How is that any different to what I said?

Our NHS is paid for in our taxes, but when we actually come to use it, it's free.

 

No, it isn't free. You already paid for it. Words like free sully the conversation when used frivolously in a dialogue about healthcare.

 

The original point was in response to the essentially free statement. The point being, is people use words like free, or essentially free, or add point of sale or whatever, to the saying. Except, it isn't free, nor essentially free. You paid for it all along, just like others do in other ways.

 

Your original point comes across as 'hey, it's free when I need it', but it glosses over the fact you pay all the time, like others do on their checks, but instead of the government getting it, it goes to another party. Money changes hands in both examples, and the service is paid for at the time it is used - how it is collected is minutia.

 

Also, I went further into explaining how it differs as in the US, you weren't technically forced into participating, whereas in other countries, you have no choice.



#73 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 15,382 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:55

It IS free, at point of use. Unlike in the US where as well as paying your insurance every month, you also get a bill after a hospital or doctor visit, we don't.

We pay our national insurance automatically from our pay checks, and that's it. There is no bill after a visit.

You need to work on your English comprehension a bit. :p

#74 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,066 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 09

Posted 15 August 2013 - 14:39

Well, it isn't just the meds that are factored into the cost. There's the nurse that got it, the pharmacist that filled it, the maintenance that cleaned your vomit off the floor cause you were allergic to it, or didn't take with food, etc.

 

Why do people look at the cost and assume that it is unreasonable without factoring in all the things that had to happen for someone to get that pill.

 

Hospitals cover costs inside what they charge. Insurance understands this and builds in set costs that are 'acceptable' and billed. Even with reform, this would happen, except government (single payer ultimately) would stifle competition, and bring a stagnation even worse than what is happening now.

 

Reform would be nice though, just less government intrusion, and more codes and enforcement of practices and anti-fraud and lawsuits for frivolous reasons.

Yeah, it is a lot of wages to pay to use a little white paper cup.  :rolleyes:



#75 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 15 August 2013 - 14:57

It IS free, at point of use. 

But ultimately it is not free, though. Just seems that way because you don't pay when you use it.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!