Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For my wife's standard childbirth this year...
the initial bill from just the hospital was $30k!
That does not include the bills from the doctors or the lab.
Wow. I bet you have REALLY good insurance to be getting charged that much.
^^#1: $120 less than a hospital birth with insurance
You continue to miss the point.
I think you must be doing it deliberately.
Bottom Right of the schedule:
$4800 TOTAL COST... no insurance involved.
(especially vs $14,400 in hospital even if Santa Clause is paying the other $10,000)
In case you're wondering... yes, this is better.
And the model should be the default for the planned and budgeted
and low level common incidents and treatments.
Last edited by MrRational; 11-20-2013 at 02:47 PM..
PLEASE post some evidence for this! I don't think you really know how this all works, what with being on Mom and Dad's insurance..
I have personally known people who have done this. All you have to do is tell the hospital how much you can pay each month and as long as you make the payment on time each money, they can't do anything to you. Many people are not aware of this and will not question the hospitals.
I have personally known people who have done this.
That is less than an anecdote.
Which of these is "evidence"?
1) a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
2) something which shows that something else exists or is true
But why is it outrageous? Why not bend these apparently rigid rules of economics, and at least try to intentionally insert human compassion, and human love and kindness, into the equation? There is no written rule or law that says that love and compassion for one's fellow human beings and the laws of economics cannot co-exist, one with another?
Pls understand, I am not saying these things to sound flippant or facetious, I am being 100% serious.
I don't doubt you. Few people understand Economics; I understand and appreciate that.
If you are thrown out of a plane at 32,000 feet, you can certainly ask the Laws of Physics to be loving and compassionate, and perhaps they just might, but none of that will change the fact that you will still impact on the surface moving at the maximum velocity due to gravity and die.
These Brits.....
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
...died, because the British government violated the Laws of Economics.
That's what happens when the government spends less than the true cost of healthcare. There are shortages of equipment, space, labs, diagnostics, doctors and staff, and people end up on waiting lists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
For example, we have food pantries, food donations and food trucks, and charitable giving programs, for the poor and the homeless, and those affected by natural disasters...so why not add some sort of national and centralized/state-level medical charity program, to help those who have no hope of ever being able to afford life-saving medical care?
You can surely do that, but notice that what you are doing results in a voluntary consumer transaction, and not a consumer transaction that is coerced, compelled or forced.
Even so, the Laws of Economics still apply.
You will not get enough donations to save everyone, and so you will have to "triage" and determine who lives and who dies.
And if you triage wrong, you could end up killing six people instead of just one person.
For example, you could collect $750,000 in donations, and spend it all on an 18-month old child with leukemia who will die anyway, or spend it on 5 other people who will live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
For example, how would you feel if it was your mother, your sister, your brother, or your child, who needed life-saving medical care? You love them and want the very best for them, yes? Above all else, you want them to live? Sometimes I think some of us cannot truly see that deep into things, unless they are hypothetically personally affected, by such circumstances...
How I feel is irrelevant. There are limited resources, so I suppose I could be selfish and demand money be spent to save them, while letting others die, or have allow other people's medical conditions worsen to the point they are debilitated.
I'm not all hung up on death, which is just as much a part of life as being born. People die, that's what they do best, and given the number of people I've watched die, and the number of dead people I've seen, I can tell you dying is something people do quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
Perhaps, but if medical care and healthcare were made a human right instead of just a privilege, the issues of resources might not be as much of an issue as it is today.
Healthcare is not a right. Rights are inherent to the being. I exist; therefore I may assemble peaceably whenever I so desire; therefore I may praise or criticize any government whenever I am so inclined; therefore I may defend myself, my property, and others....or I may choose not to do that.
Healthcare is not inherent to the self. You weren't born with healthcare, in fact, at one time, Humans didn't even know healthcare existed or was even possible.
Another thing about "rights".....they cost nothing. My "right" to Free Speech costs you nothing, just as your "rights" to Speech, Press, Peaceable Assembly and Self-Defense cost me nothing.
You are certainly free to have "healthcare" so long as it costs me nothing.
Making healthcare a "right" would strain resources and make resources more of an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
We can always build more hospitals, educate, train, and hire more doctors, and so forth.
No, you cannot, because the Laws of Economics prohibit you from doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
One practical solution to the current resource crisis levels might be to double the number of doctors we have now, for instance, to address some of the needs and demand for medical services and care to match supply. There is nothing that I can think of that is really preventing us from doubling or even quadrupling the number of doctors, that are trained and hired, every year...
I can think of lots of things.
So, you're the starting quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, is that it?
But, you're a professional athlete, no?
You're not? Then you must be a renown musician.....right?
You're a CEO, correct?
You're none of those things.......because you don't have what it takes.
Don't feel bad, because I don't have what it takes either.
Needless to say, neither of us has what takes to be a doctor.
You're either born to be a doctor, or you are not, and if you are not, there is nothing anyone living, dead or whoever will live that can alter that reality.
Only a few people walking the face of this Earth have what it takes to be a doctor. The same is true for the various classes of nurses, meaning only few could ever be a nurse practitioner, or an RN, or an LPN, or a CNA. And this same thing applies to teachers, sculptors, painters, pottery makers, farmers, and quite a few other professions, like lawyers and law enforcement.
You're Supply of Doctors is very limited. That also means that the number of Specialists is further limited --- not every doctor can be a surgeon, and just because a doctor is a great pediatrician, it doesn't mean they'd be great in geriatrics.
You are extremely limited further in the number of doctors who can also simultaneously teach....performing open-heart surgery and teaching it to others are not the same thing.
And the time limitations.
It takes years for a qualified person who has the abilities to become a doctor to make it through the education, and then even more years in training to learn the Art (depending on the specialty).
And what would you do?
You would put the life of every American in jeopardy with your diploma mills cranking out chimpanzees-as-doctors, just so you can run around bragging to people how loving and compassionate you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009
I guess that maybe my overall my point is here, if we as a society made a serious effort to mix and integrate the laws of economics with the nature of human compassion, we could really show and demonstrate to the world in a concrete way, the better and more loving side of humanity...
What's next....gonna genetically engineer coyotes so they eat alfalfa instead of rabbits, out of compassion and love for rabbits?
The Sinking Ship explains the difference between Common Sense and Ivory Tower Fantasy. A ship is sinking. There is one life-boat that holds 10 people, but unfortunately, there are 100 people on the ship.
The Common Sense person confers with others and selects 10 adults and 2 small children on merit to row away to safety in the life-boat. Although 88 people drowned to death, and that is a sad thing, 12 people survived to live on.
The Ivory Tower Fantasy person tries to cram all 100 people into a life-boat for 10 people, because it's compassionate and loving. The life-boat capsizes and sinks, resulting in all 100 people drowning to death, in a loving, compassionate way.
You continue to miss the point.
I think you must be doing it deliberately.
Bottom Right of the schedule:
$4800 TOTAL COST... no insurance involved.
(especially vs $14,400 in hospital even if Santa Clause is paying the other $10,000)
In case you're wondering... yes, this is better.
And the model should be the default for the planned and budgeted
and low level common incidents and treatments.
I'm not missing any point and you are being insulting. The Utah link showed how much a person would pay out of pocket at a hospital. They estimate $4920. (My own experience was way different. With our first, we had a policy that had been negotiated by the United Mine Workers. I paid $6 for the TV. That was it, for prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum.) Their birthing center charges $4800. It is not clear if they accept insurance, it sounds like not. You do know that these birthing centers are for low-risk births only, that is, low risk as determined before labor ensues. Some women are excluded at that point; they're not "low risk". They have medical conditions, or something else that makes them high risk. Then there is the often totally unexpected situation of premature labor, emergency C-section, placenta previa, toxemia of pregnancy and others. These women are shipped out to the hospital for L&D; in the case of preemie babies, they are sent to the NICU where the bills mount.
I'm not missing any point and you are being insulting. The Utah link showed how much a person would pay out of pocket at a hospital. They estimate $4920. (My own experience was way different. With our first, we had a policy that had been negotiated by the United Mine Workers. I paid $6 for the TV. That was it, for prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum.) Their birthing center charges $4800. It is not clear if they accept insurance, it sounds like not. You do know that these birthing centers are for low-risk births only, that is, low risk as determined before labor ensues. Some women are excluded at that point; they're not "low risk". They have medical conditions, or something else that makes them high risk. Then there is the often totally unexpected situation of premature labor, emergency C-section, placenta previa, toxemia of pregnancy and others. These women are shipped out to the hospital for L&D; in the case of preemie babies, they are sent to the NICU where the bills mount.
To chime in here, I find it funny that some of the men on this forum are saying to do away with hospitals and doctors for delivery.
Umm.. yeah.. I don't think so. LOL. as a woman who went through labor, I wouldn't want to do that OUTSIDE of a hospital (without the epidural)..
And, childbirth was/is dangerous. I know of an acquaintence who went through childbirth with twins. She was having a normal pregnancy by all accounts.. t he twins died during delivery and she nearly lost her life. If there were no doctors or hospitals around, that would have been the end of her.
Childbirth is what we do, but its also dangerous without medical supervision and the proper tools.
The Utah link showed how much a person would pay out of pocket at a hospital.
And how much without any plan at all: $14,400. (the heads up comparison)
Quote:
They estimate $4920
Correct... as the net of the insurance payment; the copay.
There is no mention of the premium payment or who pays that or how.
Conversely... that birthing center charges $4800. Flat. Period. No extra. Everything included.
(ftr... I don't know them but when I googled their very clear schedule popped up)
When people have to pay their own way they'll almost always choose to pay less.
When some other entity is paying the bills... bills tend to get bigger.
Quote:
You do know that these birthing centers are for low-risk births only...
Yes. And if you go back about 20 or so posts you'll see that was the criteria in our exchange.
My point: That the largest part of medical care and treatment is NOT exceptional.
It does not need nor does anyone (except hospitals) benefit by the involvement of insurance.
Those other levels of service, the part of medicine that actually does warrant having
some sort of insurance plan or even UHC, is a different structure than the everyday.
Please do try to appreciate the distinction.
Last edited by MrRational; 11-20-2013 at 04:04 PM..
How can a birth cost even less? For my wife's standard childbirth this year the initial bill from just the hospital was $30k! That does not include the bills from the doctors or the lab.
Free Market healthcare would drive down the cost tremendously.
If you allowed the Market to drive down the cost of healthcare, then health plan coverage would be affordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordsmith680
I think "free market" healthcare is not the answer.
That's not good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordsmith680
If I comprehend where your frustration is, hospitals are quickly becoming a monopoly.
That goes back to "that's not good enough."
Hospitals have been monopolies since 1939.
Who do you think developed the "Out-of-Network" clause and its stupidity that punishes consumers for using healthcare facilities that are "Out-of-Network?"
Uh, that would be hospitals, specifically to wit, a policy created by the American Hospital Association in 1939.
You cannot blame "health insurance" companies for that, since none existed in 1939.....in fact, none existed until 1946, and that was the Blue Cross.....owned by the American Hospital Association who created the "Out-of-Network" clause.
The intended purpose of the "Out-of-Network" clause was to stifle competition and drive competitor hospitals --- who were not members of the American Hospital Association --- out of business. And it would have worked, except for the fact that the American Medical Association intervened and saved the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordsmith680
I am not sure I am against this as the duplication of services is expensive, as is the competition between ins cos.
So, who cares? Do you want to reduce healthcare costs or not?
It's a simple question.
Reducing the cost of health plan coverage will not reduce the cost of healthcare. If you want to reduce the cost of healthcare, then the States must take action to eliminate the monopolistic hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices, and who price gouge consumers.
You know, maybe if McDonald's and Starsux starting acting like hospitals, that would grab your attention, no?
Sure it would.
Drive up to the drive-thru window at McDonald's.....no transparency....no price listings....just pictures of food items.
You order, the drive-thru teller asks who your employer is, and based on that the drive-thru teller decides how much you should pay.
Cool, huh?
Yeah, it is. You all freaking love it so much, maybe all of Corporate America should start doing it.
The price of homes? All depends on who's your employer.
Cars? No sticker price...the dealer will tell you the price once he knows who's your employer.
WalMart? Kroger? Costco? Same thing. No prices on anything. Just fill up your cart, take it to the cash register, the clerk will ask who's your employer and then charge you.
Okay, so you're paying 45% more than your neighbors who work for other employers.
Who cares?
You don't mind paying higher prices at all, because this is the system you love so dearly, and will do anything to perpetuate.
And the best thing about this system? When an unemployed person shops at WalMart or Kroger's they get to pay 10x more than what you pay.....simply because they are unemployed and thus should pay more, because in your wonderful system that you love and wish to perpetuate, that makes complete sense, right?
Isn't that just grand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordsmith680
I do not fear the "death panels" whether there private or govt because as I think you have pointed out there are limited resources and someone must do triage.
Then common sense says if anyone should triage, it should be the consumer, not government, and in the Free Market, it would be the consumer making that decision, not the government, not some monopolistic cartel, not an health plan provider, and not your employer (for those who's health plan coverage is sponsored by their employer).
Economically...
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not bend these apparently rigid rules of economics, and at least try to intentionally insert human compassion, and human love and kindness, into the equation? There is no written rule or law that says that love and compassion for one's fellow human beings and the laws of economics cannot co-exist, one with another?
