Slashdot Mirror


Is There a Hearing Aid Price Bubble?

An anonymous reader writes "The price of a pair of hearing aids in the U.S. ranges from $3,000 to $8,000. To the average American household, this is equivalent to 2-3 months of income! While the price itself seems exorbitant, what is even more grotesque is its continuous pace of growth: in the last decade the price of an average Behind the Ear hearing aid has more than doubled. To the present day, price points are not receding — even though most of its digital components have become increasingly commoditized. Is this a hearing aid price bubble?"

698 comments

  1. Hmmm. by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone's parents are getting older.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Hmmm. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      Wrong. Someone is getting older. Next year is the year that the first cohort of Baby Boomers turns 65. Perhaps their "Market" will find a price they can bare in the coming months.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Hmmm. by jasno · · Score: 4, Informative

      65? I'm around half that and I'm about ready for a hearing aid. A friend of mine who works on his house more than me needed one about the same age.

      Kids, protect your hearing. It sucks to lose the ability to hear people in a crowded room. Especially you crazy maker-types running to the saw to make a few cuts. Get some foam earmuffs, the kind used for shooting, and put them next to the saw. Use em *every* time.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    3. Re:Hmmm. by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Not wrong at all. Someone could be me, my parents are definitely getting older. Not that you're wrong, I am also getting older.

      --
      signature is pants
    4. Re:Hmmm. by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 0

      WHAT? Speak up!

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    5. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's patents are getting older. FTFY. Milk them before they expire... See, this is what happens when the pharma industry does technology.

    6. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's Patents are getting bolder.

      I fixed it for you.

    7. Re:Hmmm. by PPH · · Score: 2

      Get some foam earmuffs, the kind used for shooting, and put them next to the saw. Use em *every* time.

      Good advice! They also save you from having to hear yourself scream when you take a finger off.

      I've worn ear plugs since my days in a rock and roll band. I can still hear just fine (But the drugs have played hell with my understanding).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hearing aid manufacturers need to hire the Hover Round lobbyists, then hearing-aids will be free

    9. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I found a way of dealing with my irritation at the government paying for all those Hover Rounds.

      It's a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

      Every fatty on SS disability that gets a Hover Round will die much quicker, more then covering the cost of the 'Hover Rounds'. You realize we pay for both the twinkies and the insulin?

      Hearing aids don't have that built in payback.

    10. Re:Hmmm. by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even babies are getting older these days.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    11. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. Rock and roll destroyed my hearing.

    12. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Disco destroyed my sinuses

    13. Re:Hmmm. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!

      Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

    14. Re:Hmmm. by Sene · · Score: 2

      So everyone would sound like Mickey the mouse? Brilliant!

    15. Re:Hmmm. by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!

      Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      The more expensive hearing aids have an equalizer which can be tuned. That way, you only amplify the frequency ranges you need. Frequency shifting would be much more complex and really not necessary.

    16. Re:Hmmm. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      Carry around a balloon full of sulfur hexafluoride.

    17. Re:Hmmm. by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      What?

    18. Re:Hmmm. by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 2

      So everyone would sound like Mickey the mouse? Brilliant!

      or Michael Clarke Duncan.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    19. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps there needs to be more competition in that market, Run by people who understand the needs of the market.

      It's not like their retirement funds are going to last as long as they should have.

    20. Re:Hmmm. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I've had hearing aids for 18 years. I'm 23. Fortunately, my parents insurance covered them up until I finished college two years ago... not sure where I'm going to get the money to replace them in a few years. On the bright side... my current pair is somewhat geeky. There's a wireless link between the two.

    21. Re:Hmmm. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That's the point of a programmable hearing aid (if I'm using the word right). The amplification can be matched to your deficit in hearing. It's like a mixer in a sound studio. As best as I could figure out, the $14 hearing aids aren't programmable, but the $100 ones are.

    22. Re:Hmmm. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Disco destroyed my sinuses

      Better that than your rectum...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    23. Re:Hmmm. by no1nose · · Score: 1

      Wow, so the population of the US is on the downturn next year? I wonder if that is going to lead to long-term housing price drops. An abundance of used cars on the market, shortage of adult diapers and generic drugs at the Rx.

    24. Re:Hmmm. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      $14? $100?

      The summary said they were $3000 to $8000 a pair...

    25. Re:Hmmm. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      Yogi Berra?!

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    26. Re:Hmmm. by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The summary wasn't quite accurate. $3000 to $8000 a pair is supposed to be the traditional price.

      This story is actually a product marketing newsletter for the company that sells Audicus hearing aids http://www.audicus.com/category/hearing-aids/ which start from $400 a pair.

      http://www.mdhearingaid.com/acoustitone_max/ starts at $200 per pair.

      The cheapest was http://www.dealextreme.com/p/axon-hearing-aid-v163-4326 Axon Hearing Aid (V163) for about $27 a pair, but they don't seem to adjust to the frequency of the patient's loss.

    27. Re:Hmmm. by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      "Dolby noise reduction". Unfortunately it makes all music sound out of tune too.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    28. Re:Hmmm. by thesh0ck · · Score: 0

      You can buy over the counter hearing aids that are just as good for about $150. Consumer Reports reported that they are just as good.. generally things cost a lot because insurance companies increase the benefits for that item... so they charge everyone that price. This is not just hearing aids. This is every medical device or procedure. The more the insurance comanies are willing to pay.. the higher the average price goes. Also... if you dont use your insurance.. they will generaly give you a break, as well as if you decline the "free extras" that come with them that have increased prices by about 16%, such as free gas cards etc...

    29. Re:Hmmm. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore.

      Don't worry, the older you get the more you'll think that's actually a benefit.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    30. Re:Hmmm. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2

      why do they need a link?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    31. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would mod you up if I could!!

    32. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! Who wants to see bare 65 year olds? Guess you're not an obssessive spelling freak.

    33. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. "

      That's not a hearing problem, that's just the way it is.

    34. Re:Hmmm. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Grr..you beat me to it.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    35. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their market? Would you prefer paying for hearing aids with political favors and shortages?

    36. Re:Hmmm. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight; you are complaining about NOT being able to hear women and children?

      On a serious note, I am curious why we haven't augmented hearing with surgical implants.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    37. Re:Hmmm. by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      The batteries go flat too quickly. If we can't make pacemakers run off bio-electric energy, no chance we'll manage hearing aids any time soon.

    38. Re:Hmmm. by Walkingshark · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!

      Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      Excuse me while I run to the patent office for a totally unrelated reason.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    39. Re:Hmmm. by unitron · · Score: 1

      You don't need pitch change, you just need a "graphic equalizer" type hearing aid that only amplitue boosts the frequencies you need boosted.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    40. Re:Hmmm. by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Maybe not in the way you meant, but we do:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

    41. Re:Hmmm. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      A wireless link has high geek factor, but I'd really prefer not to have a radio transmitter inside my skull.

      My programmable in-the-ear aids work sufficiently well without talking to each other.

    42. Re:Hmmm. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      $3000 to $8000 a pair is supposed to be the traditional price.

      This story is actually a product marketing newsletter for the company that sells Audicus hearing aids

      Congratulations! You Sir have found the whole point of this non-story: a cheesy slashvertisement...

      Moderators, please mod parent up!

      Now, some kind soul only needs to put a H*tl*r reference into the other threads, in order to make them die a peaceful death..

    43. Re:Hmmm. by ancienthart · · Score: 1

      As an aside, I'd like to know how much my hearing has been harmed when watching TV and the advertisements are piped through 20 decibels louder than the shows. :(

    44. Re:Hmmm. by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Frequency shifting is easy and it can be done analog. Many PA systems incorporated a small frequency shift to prevent feedback, not suitable for music, but fine for voice. I wish they would do it so my dad's hearing aid wouldn't whistle every time he scratches his ear or brushes back his hair.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    45. Re:Hmmm. by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      Some hearing aids do exactly that. The testing and custom configuration of the hearing aids to accomplish this is part of the reason they have become so expensive.

    46. Re:Hmmm. by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      Helicopters got mine.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    47. Re:Hmmm. by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, there are these hairs in the cochlea that vibrate as a response to sound waves. The smaller ones are more sensitive to high frequency sounds and more delicate, thus they are the first to go as a result of hearing damage. Pure supposition on my part, but it would probably be much easier to make a hearing aid that amplifies only higher sounds rather than trying to auto-tune the frequency to something you could hear unaided. It would probably be preferable that way as well. Imagine music where anything over 10Khz was dropped to something below that threshold!

    48. Re:Hmmm. by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Screw the table saw... I wear a set of ear defenders at work. I'm surrounded by people who have never heard of using their "inside voice" in the office.

      Noise levels may not be high enough to hurt my hearing (haven't thought of bringing in a meter), but it is certainly high enough to affect my productivity.

    49. Re:Hmmm. by notmyusualnickname · · Score: 1

      Carry around a balloon full of sulfur hexafluoride.

      _Bucket_, surely.

    50. Re:Hmmm. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Be not overfond of hearing aids. One key to long marriage is not to have to respond to everything. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    51. Re:Hmmm. by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!

      Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!

      Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?

      That's part of what an audiologist does is find where you are deficient and set up an aid for you in those frequencies.

      --
      Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    52. Re:Hmmm. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      All of those Who concerts are coming back on them.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    53. Re:Hmmm. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency...

      Of course, but what you're asking for is another algorithm for a hearing aid. Modern hearing aids (which as far as I'm aware are pretty much exclusively digital these days) are calibrated by the audiologist according to the frequency ranges in which your hearing is deficient. None of them will damage your hearing any more than it already is, and the consensus seems to be that such amplification should be done as early as possible, so that your brain doesn't get into the habit of ignoring that input.

      A common pattern (and I was an example of this) is to carry on in denial of one's hearing loss, to the frustration one's family and friends. A more healthy approach might be to characterise the use of hearing aids as being little different from wearing glasses.

    54. Re:Hmmm. by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      And for cutting grass. It really will affect your hearing over time if you don't wear protection for something that seems relative innocuous. And visiting your old parents. When I visit my parents, watching TV is just fucking painful with them. I resorted to bringing my ear protection with me just to eat dinner at their place.

    55. Re:Hmmm. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Funny

      But:
      1) The cars will be gas hogs.
      2) The houses will have all of the copper ripped out.
      3) The diapers will be shipped in from China.
      4) The shipping companies will be owned by a Chinese company.
      5) The drug companies will have purchased enough votes to receive long term restrictions from generic drug makers to make "age related health improvement drugs".
      6) The Teabagger Party will have repealed all of the benefits to people making less than $250,000/y from the health care law and exempt those above from having to pay health insurance.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    56. Re:Hmmm. by femtoguy · · Score: 2

      Actually my daughters' hearing aides are even cooler. They not only have variable amplifiers that are tuned to match their hearing loss, they also have a pitch shifting program that shifts higher frequencies down so that as their high frequency loss increases, we can just move the upper frequencies down to where they are still sensitive. Happily they don't need that yet, but it is available.

      And while I agree that the prices are insane, things are a bit better than they sound. Our audiologist includes all fitting, re-programming, adjustments, and continued testing in the cost. So we don't pay anything for our twice yearly visits, which saves a couple of hundred dollars a year, and we figure counts for 25% of the purchase costs over a 5 year life time.

    57. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have trouble hearing what people are saying in a noisy room because my ears are too flat. If I push then forwards a bit it is fine. Can't get them adjusted on the NHS and can't afford to go private.

    58. Re:Hmmm. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what a deal. Pay 5 years of office visits up front, at full price, regardless of whether you need them or not.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    59. Re:Hmmm. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      His daughter requires and wears hearing aids, you stupid ass. She's a growing and changing child. You want a professional determining changing conditions. Sorry, stupid, ignorant ass.

    60. Re:Hmmm. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the informative response! I need to see an audiologist.

    61. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you checked Costco?

    62. Re:Hmmm. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Actually my daughters' hearing aides are even cooler.

      Your daughter has aides that wander around listening to things for her? I bet that costs a lot more than an ordinary hearing aid, at least until the next price hike.

    63. Re:Hmmm. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      And when hammering or using compressed air.

    64. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amplify the volume. Of course, did you think that it would make people speak by yelling?

    65. Re:Hmmm. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Actually, the going price around here is about $1000. This amount includes the in-ear unit, the adjustment for correcting higher frequencies above the normal levels, and the preparation of silicon molds that will allow the unit to fit into the auditory canal and not fall out because of a sudden movement or because, in winter, we tend to wear hats with ear flaps.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    66. Re:Hmmm. by Sanat · · Score: 1

      I had my ears damaged by guns in the military and am close to deaf however I can also hear lower frequency sounds better than high (women and kids).

      When the ear test is performed it measures each frequency range and then the hearing aid is programmed to produce a flat response based on each frequency range. As an example if you have a hard time hearing 8kz then that frequency would be amplified more by the hearing aid.

      The newest hearing aids are very small and fit entirely in the ear (some even permit you to shower with it in). The technology has greatly improved as far as battery life, ease of programming, and as far as size decreasing so I realize that the cost needs to go up... but my last pair were $5,000 each

      In actual material value there is probably $20 worth of material in it so there is a huge profit going to the company and the audiologist... but then there are not all that many people who are hard of hearing.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    67. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The opposite can suck too. There's a silent alarm at work that I'm the only one that can hear. It's massively painful when it goes off and it's a bit awkward the first time you plug your ears and make pain noises in a meeting when everyone else has absolutely no idea what's going on. I also hear the salespeople on the other side of the office when no one else can...I basically can't get any work done without wearing headphones.

      There's a sweet spot when it comes to hearing which most people don't think about because they've never experienced the other end of the spectrum.

    68. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the netherlands a hearing aid costs 470,- euro
      thats an advanced digital heating aid.
      this is fully compensated by insurance,so they are for free.
      but hey why not make a hearing aid app for the smartphone? including lots of extra functions

    69. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words : hearing-aid app

    70. Re:Hmmm. by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      You don't want frequency shifting, but rather amplification of only that narrow band.

    71. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more. I can tell that my hearing is diminished and I do wish I had not been so stupid about it. I blame the years I played in a Punk/ Ska band (100's of shows) combined with the 100's of concerts I attended.

  2. Oh No! by johnsnails · · Score: 3, Funny

    This outrageous story will fall on deaf ears

    1. Re:Oh No! by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      haha, Our waterslide is built for adults :P Let me try find a pic of a rock the size of a fist that got lodged in the bottom of one of the boggy boards and almost cut it straight down the middle.

    2. Re:Oh No! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      buu-dud drum.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Oh No! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      buu-dud drum.

      Is that the sound of Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt bombarding the Luxembourgish North?

  3. An excellent point, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's absolutely disgusting how expensive these things are. I think it may be worth it to note that the site in question is in the business of selling their own hearing aids, though...

    1. Re:An excellent point, but... by SgtXaos · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely disgusting how expensive these things are. I think it may be worth it to note that the site in question is in the business of selling their own hearing aids, though...

      Exactly why I tagged this "Spam"

      A maker of low-cost hearing aids posts a story about how expensive others are. News?

      --
      -- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
    2. Re:An excellent point, but... by number11 · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely disgusting how expensive these things are. I think it may be worth it to note that the site in question is in the business of selling their own hearing aids, though...

      Indeed. I suspect there may be differences (beyond price) between their products and the expensive ones. Whether those differences are worth it, I don't know. And if you can't afford the difference, it's irrelevant anyhow.

      Another data point is that the local building-supply chain is selling devices that the packaging is careful not to call "hearing aids", little shirt-pocket amplifiers with earbuds, for around $30. My own hearing is starting to get worse (it's never been good) and there's no way I can afford the expensive gear. So I've got one (that I bought for $5 at a garage sale). And it works. (Earbuds don't stay in my ears, so I wear regular headphones. I think it would complete the effect if I acquired a microphone that I could stick in people's faces when they were talking to me.)

      I do have some reservations... if we posit my hearing got worse from exposure to loud sounds, artificially making the sounds I hear louder might not be the best course. But what the hell, you only live once.

    3. Re:An excellent point, but... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I think it may be worth it to note that the site in question is in the business of selling their own hearing aids, though...

      Yes, and they are twice as expensive as their competition...

    4. Re:An excellent point, but... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I suspect there may be differences (beyond price) between their products and the expensive ones.

      The expensive prices ($3000-$8000) are pure fabrication of the slashvertiser. Products of comparable quality than the slashvertiser run at about half the price ($200) than the slashvertiser. Fly-by-nights run at about 1/15th of their price ($27)

    5. Re:An excellent point, but... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The expensive prices ($3000-$8000) are pure fabrication of the slashvertiser.

      Since you obviously don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, you might as well not bother posting.

      My hearing aids cost me $AU10K. If you convert that to $US at current exchange rates, it's more. Everyone's hearing less is different, and if you really think modern hearing aids are just glorified ear-trumpets, you are quite wrong.

    6. Re:An excellent point, but... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      I was not posting for idiots like you who have excessive money to throw around at scammers, but instead for those who are willing to learn something new.

      And if you really think that the moon is made of green cheese, you are quite wrong.

    7. Re:An excellent point, but... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      In other words, you (since you manifestly have no experience to contribute) are trolling just for the sake of jerking off. I was making the point that since cases of hearing loss where any kind of generic solution is useful are rare, claiming that anyone who spends $BIGNUM has more money than sense is not very helpful when their options are constrained in the first place.

      Since you have obviously never been in such a situation, allow me enlighten you:

      If you are an adult on your first appointment with an audiologist, you will in all likelihood have felt uncomfortable with the situation, e.g. as a result of embarrassing conversations with friends or family when you suddenly realise that you have completely misunderstood something that has been said to you. You are then subjected to a series of audiological tests which don't really represent issues relating to the outside world (background noise etc). You are then presented with a (confined) range of hardware options for dealing with your particular problem, and if you get lucky, you and the audiologist might get the solution right the first time. More commonly, you have to try out two or more solutions before you arrive at something you can live with. Even if you manage to get the hardware right, it usually needs a lot of tweaking of frequency response before it starts to work for you.

      Sure, if you have unlimited time and funds, you can repeat the process with other consultants, but the process is not fun.

    8. Re:An excellent point, but... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      If you are an adult on your first appointment with an audiologist, you will in all likelihood have felt uncomfortable with the situation, e.g. as a result of embarrassing conversations with friends or family when you suddenly realise that you have completely misunderstood something that has been said to you. You are then subjected to a series of audiological tests which don't really represent issues relating to the outside world (background noise etc). You are then presented with a (confined) range of hardware options for dealing with your particular problem, and if you get lucky, you and the audiologist might get the solution right the first time. More commonly, you have to try out two or more solutions before you arrive at something you can live with. Even if you manage to get the hardware right, it usually needs a lot of tweaking of frequency response before it starts to work for you.

      Well, as you so "obviously" also misunderstand the written word, we can assume that your problems are not tied to your ears, which would explain the difficulties in choosing the right hearing aids.

      May I humbly suggest that maybe you get your ... brain checked? Indeed, this component seems to be common for listening as well as for reading comprehension, ... Your kids might be happy too, as maybe the braindoc might also manage to stop your foolish spending (well, except for his own rates of course...)

    9. Re:An excellent point, but... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Some time ago, (when there was still technically inclined people in Slashdot) there was a post (I *think* an ask slashdot) related to hearing aids.

      IIRC correctly, it was argued that one of the reasons these hearing aids are overpriced is because they are considered "medical devices". Additionally, several people here suggested some devices (I think some even DIY) that were at much better prices.

      Of course, as I expected the current /. comments tread is full of almost political whining.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  4. Since no one ever buys them... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Insurance/Government pays for it. Why not jack up the price?

    1. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 4, Informative

      You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    2. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Cyclopedian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most insurance plans do not cover purchases of hearing aids.

    3. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by inode_buddha · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily. I was born with hearing loss, and have been denied coverage for my entire life due to pre-existing condition. My family had to scrape up cash when I was a kid. As an adult, (I'm 44 now) I lived in a shithole areas with marginal jobs - it took years to get management to consider health coverage. There was no way I could have afforded insurance on my pay grade, even if they would cover hearing aids.

      I finally got laid off long ago and turned to the government. That fixed the problem.

      As for a price bubble, I actually don't think its too far out of line, when you consider the capabilities of the newer models. Be aware also that some of the silicon is covered under patent licenses from Bose and Siemens, at least in the higher-end models. And the higher-end models are truly amazing compared to the old analog stuff I grew up with.

      --
      C|N>K
    4. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by sehlat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Insurance doesn't "buy them" and much depends on what your plan is and/or covers.

      In my own case, I needed one hearing aid. Total price $4k. My insurance covered exactly half of that. I'm glad to have it, but what we still have here is an FDA-controlled cartel. There is the "Why not jack up the price."

    5. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by joocemann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Capitalism at its finest.... people have needs... you have answers.... gouge em till they stop asking! Or gouge their insurance and drive rates up for everyone.

      CAPITALISM DOES NOT BELONG IN MEDICINE. SINGLE PAYER, NON PROFIT. DO IT.

    6. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gd2shoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actual capitalism is fine in medicine. Fraud, bribery, corrupt regulation, and general unchecked avarice drive up prices. We need fewer medical regulations, and more white collar crimes police units.

      Where capitalism has absolutely no place is insurance. Private insurance, yes; for profit insurance, are you @#$% kidding?!?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    7. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by brainboyz · · Score: 1, Troll

      What do you do for a living? What if I told you that you weren't allowed to make a profit? No extras, just a "living" wage. No bonuses, no benefits. How would you feel about that? Would you attempt to be the best you can at your job, or just punch the clock?

    8. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that capitalism is capable of solving problems like this, right? If it can be done cheaper, someone will do it, and will sell more units than everyone else. In fact, if you're so sure it can be done cheaper, why don't you do it? That's the beauty of capitalism. Where there's a need and a way, someone fills it. The technology in these things is incredible. It wasn't cheap to develop it. The required education for a consulting doctor is expensive, not to mention difficult (yes, when you invest all of your 20s to schooling, you get to be compensated later on in life). Even the material cost of these things is quite a bit.

      And by "single payer," I assume you mean "successful people will pay an even higher percentage of taxes than they already are, creating a greater need for these types of programs due to increased unemployment."

    9. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hearing aids are provided under Medicare in Australia - to everyone who needs them - for free - just like nearly all of our health care, we need to include the 2 things we miss - Dental and Glasses, but even those poor people with a health care card get those for free too. How do we do this I hear you ask. We pay 1 to 1.5% of wages as a medicare levy in our taxes, and another 1% if we dont have private insurance. We dont pay for private insurance unless we want too, and even then full cover for a single person is around $1000 a year, not the $10,000 to $12,000 Americans pay. When will Americans realise that not having socialised medicine is hurting them all - the poor with no cover and those that have insurance by exorbitant premiums paid by you or your employer. Health Care is a right. Its time the US of A joined the first world and stopped fighting over socialised health care.

    10. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by joocemann · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're too dim to understand the difference between non-profit and capitalism.

      Non-profit means all of the people involved in the work still get paid. The doctors get paid. The nurses. The hospitals. The people who administer payment from the single payer system even get paid.

      What DOESN'T exist is MORE MONEY/COSTS being taken out for people who do not actually do the work. These are the stockholders to insurance companies.

      I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to explain this to you so now you understand.

      I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.

    11. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      no, what we get are cheap and shit (walmart) or not (you cant afford it) its a 2 tier system.

    12. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our medical system is nothing like capitalism, so you've got half your wish already.

      Making it non-profit will drive lots of talented people from the field. Honestly, I don't care, because I can fly to wherever all those people move to practice and pay them a fair rate for the awesome work they do.

    13. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by joocemann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So why is it that single payer non-profit health insurance is 40% LOWER in cost than *ANY* for profit insurer out there?

      You've expressed that it will win, but you've got NO FACTS to show. In the US, insurance is largely FOR PROFIT. Please demonstrate one company where they charge LESS than can be achieved by single-payer..... I'll wait... Matter of fact I"ll check for your response in a week because I know you won't find ANYTHING. If what you said was true, people would be using that insurer like crazy!

      Get out of your utopian head and back to reality. Capitalism in medicine is criminal.

    14. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Medicare taxes are 2.6% in the US, so of you get better service for 1.5%, maybe there's more to it than that.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    15. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by DeathSquid · · Score: 1

      Hearing aids are provided under Medicare in Australia - to everyone who needs them - for free - just like nearly all of our health care, we need to include the 2 things we miss - Dental and Glasses, but even those poor people with a health care card get those for free too. How do we do this I hear you ask. We pay 1 to 1.5% of wages as a medicare levy in our taxes, and another 1% if we dont have private insurance. We dont pay for private insurance unless we want too, and even then full cover for a single person is around $1000 a year, not the $10,000 to $12,000 Americans pay. When will Americans realise that not having socialised medicine is hurting them all - the poor with no cover and those that have insurance by exorbitant premiums paid by you or your employer. Health Care is a right. Its time the US of A joined the first world and stopped fighting over socialised health care.

      You are clearly a dirty communist. Universal access to decent healthcare is UNAMERICAN.

    16. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could look abroad at the experience of doctors working under that arrangement to find out the answer.

      Huh, would you look at that? Seems to work pretty well in Japan, France, Switzerland, Finland, just to name a few examples off the top of my head.

    17. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by v1 · · Score: 1

      If it can be done cheaper, someone will do it, and will sell more units

      Until they get suedinto a stain on the floor for patent infringement by the squadron of lawyers a 30:1 profit margin can buy the big companies that make the $3k hearing aids.

      The problem isn't the fundamental government type (none of them are foolproof), and it's not the big companies either (greed is universal and unstoppable) the problem is the legal system is going to the highest bidder, and that makes problems like this unsolvable by the little guy.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    18. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gr8fulnded · · Score: 2, Informative

      You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.

      True on the insurance part, not so much on the gov't part. I get a digital hearing aid for 100% free (thank you, taxpayers) every two years from the VA. They rolled to full digital HA's a long time ago.

    19. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bgat · · Score: 1

      Medical regulations aren't causing the expense of your hearing aids. I don't know where the blame lies, but that almost certainly isn't it.

      The reason capitalism isn't necessarily fine with medicine is the number of suppliers is often so limited, there is no real competition. If there are only two vendors of hearing aids, for example, the first one to raise prices will invite the other to do likewise, since there is no point in leaving any cash on the table. And nobody wants to invite a race to the bottom.

      In fairness, hearing aids today are much, much more sophisticated than they were a decade ago. I'm not saying that justifies their current cost (I don't really know), I'm just saying that comparing today's prices against inferior products of a decade ago isn't necessarily useful.

      --
      b.g.
    20. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Problem is there is no free market in the traditional sense.

      For example, you can price the aids as high as the market could bare for individuals and that is fine. Issue is you and I pay for them with our taxes and HMO monthly payments and we are not consumers.

      It creates an artificially high price where supply is limited by people who are not consumers. If anything this sounds more similiar to big government where we pay for things whether we use them or not.

    21. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the amount you make does not determine the amount of effort you put into the job (for most people). The mindset of the general populace is make the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.

    22. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --

      lol you must be part of the problem %ile, or fooling yourself, bad at math, or both.

    23. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by mindflux · · Score: 0

      Most insurance plans do not cover purchases of hearing aids.

      MOST? Almost none do. I wear a HA and I've come out of pocket about 7 grand in the last 10 years. :/

    24. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bgat · · Score: 2

      I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.

      How exactly would the patent owner recover the expense of your research? Drug _manufacturing_ isn't where the expense lies, the cost is in identifying the compound to manufacture. If you base the price on the manufacturing cost, then there is no money left for research on new products.

      And I dispute your suggestion that stockholders and insurance companies don't contribute meaningfully to the process. Stockholders provide their cold, hard cash that helps the company e.g. make payroll during the research phase; insurance allows companies to take greater risks and still remain financially solvent if those bets don't pay out. Both are very real and tangible contributions.

      Tell you what. Launch a business that has no stockholders, and purchases no insurance. Let me know how that works out for you.

      --
      b.g.
    25. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 2

      Just to make sure we're using the language as we intend to. Two different things are often referred to as "rights" but are different in kind.

      A right is a claim you have against a government, whether to safeguard or to provide. Voting is a right; the government is obligated to provide the means to do so and behave correctly in response to those votes (not cheat the counts, actually let the ones voted in take office, etc.). Legal representation is a right; the government must permit you to receive legal advice for a trial, and if you don't have the means for that it is further obligated to provide you with the means.

      A liberty is a thing that the government is not allowed to infringe. Free speech is a liberty; the government must allow people to speak freely and may not interfere with that freedom, but it is not obligated to provide people with the means by which to engage in it (for example by handing out telephones or the intelligence to engage in civil discourse). Bearing arms is a liberty; the government must not disarms its citizens, but it's not responsible for actually proving them arms.

    26. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a different job?

    27. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow the link. You will find that a capitalist is selling hearing aids for 80% cheaper, $200 - $500 instead of the $3000 - $8000. Did you know that the recent Federal Health Insurance law (ObamaCare) puts a 2.3 percent excise tax on sales of most medical devices. That is a sales tax charged directly to the patient. I will also point out that capitalists are offering "non-medical devices" for enhancing hearing for $10. And in-ear monitors used by musicians are $300. These are orders of magnitude better than any "hearing aid" on the market. Why are they so cheap yet so much better? They don't have to deal with the government imposed regulations and taxes and they also can't rely on government handouts through MEDICARE and VA to pay those ridiculously inflated prices.

    28. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I've recently thought that hearing aids should be really cheap, because it's actually become fashionable/accepted to wear bluetooth earpieces. Presently, the devices are expensive because they try to miniaturize everything. However, if they made them bigger, like a standard bluetooth earpiece, and even used bluetooth to communicate with a larger receiver, then they could get the price down really low. Look at the advertisement at the top of the page. Those aren't anything like the hearing aids my grandpa used to have. You probably couldn't even see one of those once it was inserted in the ear.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by GSloop · · Score: 2

      Really, when was the last time you talked to an insurance company and thought: "They really attempt to be the best they can at their job.

      Ah, me neither.

      -Greg

    30. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this I the perfect case in point. The profit motive won't work when it comes to medicine. The ever increasing ranks of poor and unemployed are just supposed to live in silence or evenually madness because they can't help someone make their bonuses? (or benefits... like health insurance? How poetic!). The choice is the hospital passes the cost on to the insured or extras, bonuses or benefits.... single payer is the only rational solution.

    31. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 0

      You're too dim to understand the difference between non-profit and capitalism.

      Non-profit means all of the people involved in the work still get paid. The doctors get paid. The nurses. The hospitals. The people who administer payment from the single payer system even get paid.

      What DOESN'T exist is MORE MONEY/COSTS being taken out for people who do not actually do the work. These are the stockholders to insurance companies.

      I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to explain this to you so now you understand.

      I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.

      Okay genius.. where do you think the money to pay those "wages that are not profit" comes from? Magic unicorns? It comes from the profits the entity makes that employs you. The real difference between "profit" and "non-profit" is the level of margins between costs and income. A theoretical attempts to keep them in balance whereas a for profit entity attempts to bring in more money than goes out.

      Do you also think you're some how morally superior those people who work for a profit instead of a "wage"? As to stock holders not doing any work in the classic sense you're somewhat correct. However, where do you think the money they use to invest comes from? The same magic Unicorn that your wages came from? Or did it in fact come from the work they did either in their primary jobs or as investment brokers? There is no such thing as a free lunch, or anything else, so that money came from somewhere and had to be produced by providing a valuable service or product to someone else.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    32. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, that out of the way, let's look at "Health Care is a right." Based on your argument I think you really did mean right in the sense outline above. I disagree with that stance. Health care is a liberty and not a right. The government can't get in the way of a person seeking it but is not obliged to provide it. Health care is a thing used by an individual. It is not right for the government to take resources from everyone in the form of taxes, and then use them to provide resources to individuals, even if it's to each individual. If groups of people want to band together voluntarily for that purpose, that's great. In fact, at the fundamental level that's what insurance is.

      Since you bring up health care costs, let me posit one reason why such inefficiencies abound. And let me acknowledge right now that I don't have any data on this as it is a hypothesis. It seems strange that health care is so intimately tied to employment in the US. It's actually a weird relic from WWII when there were strong wage controls in the US. How do you compete for employees when you can't just pay them more? Give them the health care that congress forgot to include in the controls! These days the reason health care is tied to employment is that it's deductible for the company and never counts as income to be taxed for the recipient. That means that the recipient is essentially paying less for the insurance because he gets out of paying those taxes. That amounts to a massive government subsidy on health insurance. Worse, it pretty much guarantees a large demand since everybody's going to buy the insurance if the government's footing part of the bill. Inflated demand combined with subsidies is not a recipe for efficiency.

      P.S. I split the posts because I suspect this is an unpopular opinion to hold here and anticipate being modded down, but I figured the definition part might see the light of day and be of some use.

    33. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Afell001 · · Score: 2

      Part of the reason why Doctors in other industrialized nations do well is because the state picks up the bill on their education and provides legal protections against rampant malpractice lawsuits without merit, thus lessening the need for costly malpractice insurance. In most industrialized countries, even a legitimate malpractice lawsuit tends to have lower payouts due to the fact that the patient still receives the benefit of health coverage and cannot be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition.

      Take these factors into account, and a doctor in Switzerland, or Germany, for instance, can make anywhere from 50-60% less gross than a doctor here in the US, and still end up with more net income in the end when you take out the payments made to student loans, malpractice insurance and any number of board and licensing fees. Also consider that most practices cover the malpractice insurance of the rest of their medical staff (i.e., nurses, equipment techs, etc.).

      The other side of the coin is that practices in other countries usually have a shorter list of insurance carriers to deal with, and most, if not all of them, are required to pay in a very timely manner, whereas in the US, every insurance company has their own way of handling insurance payouts, and failure to follow their exacting methods will result in payment denial. Even if you follow their procedure, most insurance companies take 60-90 days to pay out to providers. And this is common in the industry.

    34. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a free market; if you think people are charging too much for hearing aids, you should open a shop and sell them for a little less. If you're right, you'll make lots of money.

    35. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Capitalism, or free market? Not exactly the same thing. Free market does not necessarily work well in health industry because the customer is obligated to buy, sometimes at the expense of their own life if they do not buy. They may not have time to shop around, can't vote with their wallet. In essence it's not a true free market because buyer and seller are not on equal terms. You also have a third party involved which is the doctor. A doctor can make a recommendation that thbe patient needs a procedure or a prescription without being a part of the financial transaction. The doctor may be making a recommendation that is not necessarily a good economic one for these reasons, such as recommending a premium drug instead of a generic one. (also complicated because some drug companies give vouchers so that the patient has the same co-pay for both the premium drug and the generic version, hiding the true cost that goes to the HMO/insurance)

    36. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me what the average doctor or nurse gets extra when their hospital is making a profit.

      Because they don't.

      The people you are describing are the people profiting off of overcharging sick people. They are not the people who work in the hospital.

    37. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      Retardation at its finest.... If you're buying directly from your audiologist, you're going to pay top dollar. And those absurd prices are list price. But you can buy all kinds of hearing aids on the internet these days, ranging in price from under $100 up to as much as you want to spend. You can buy them from Amazon. Really, is it too much to ask that someone googles the topic for 5 minutes before greenlighting this garbage?

      The problem isn't capitalism in medicine, it's the lack of capitalism. Government over regulation keeps competition scarce and prices high.

    38. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by swalve · · Score: 1

      Taxes might go up, but the actual cost of the care would go down. All those healthcare premiums we pay (ourselves or through our employers) would be gone. Taxes might go up 5 points, but our salaries would go up 10 points and everyone would be thrilled. 17% of our GDP goes to healthcare costs, and a significant portion of that is overhead. And graft and bribery and so on and so on. I mean, think of it: part of what we pay for healthcare goes toward paying the salaries of people whose jobs it is to make sure we don't actually consume healthcare.

      Single payer would be the most capitalistic solution out there: people would no longer be restricted to various in-network hacks, and actually be able to choose the providers with the best care. Bad providers would no longer be able to hack people to death because they are the only option their patients can afford. Isn't something like 50% of bankruptcies somehow related to medical costs? Imagine how much more efficent the entire economy would be able to be without all that drag. It would almost literally pay for itself, if someone had the fucking stones to set the system up. Nixon tried, but failed.

    39. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      The hearing aids that I have right now, can hook into cell phone via bluetooth. Also TV, movies, iPod, and the car radio. Standard feature. However the price of hearing aids will tend to remain high because the silicon is semi-custom - and custom-made chips are not cheap. Not to mention the programming and support software at the dealer.

      --
      C|N>K
    40. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we ask why the price of insurance is so high.

    41. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by friedmud · · Score: 2

      If the components "have become increasingly commoditized"... then capitalism will fix this. Some enterprising person will come along and start up a new company making hearing aids for half the current asking price and the market will fix itself. If the components really are specialized enough that they can demand the prices they have now then that won't happen (and then there is nothing wrong with the current prices).

      This is actually exactly what the "story" is about... it is asking if the current market is overpriced... and if so is there going to a "bubble" where the market for hearing aids falls due to some disruptive company (or technology shift).

      This is actually capitalism at work!

      If there were just a single supplier (like the government) then there would be no incentive to innovate (do you honestly think that hearing aids now are the same as they were 10 years ago? My grandfather says they are orders of magnitude better (he is almost completely deaf). They would just keep pumping out "The Citizen's Hearing Aid" for years to come and that would be your only choice...

      I don't really understand why people are so quick to jump to socialism for answers when things are expensive. In most cases they are expensive because they can be, because they were hard to make / invent... and if that isn't the case then capitalism "fixes" it through market forces. Yes, there are some markets where competition doesn't work... but I hardly think that hearing aids is one of those....

    42. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great if you're a veteran or a congressmen, whoop-de-fucking-do for the rest of us.

    43. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Surt · · Score: 2

      No, wages come out of the gross, and are a cost before profit. Understanding that is really key to understanding what non-profit means, exactly.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    44. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It does explain the price.

      It is my understanding that elsewhere in the world, hearing aids can be had for under $100. If the companies in the U.S can get $8000 for them from the tax payers, then they only need to sell 1/80th as much for the same profits, and thats not counting the cost savings of significantly less wholesale/retail infrastructure.

      The question is, why is the VA (and other forms of insurance where it is covered) breaking the free market with a ridiculous willingness to spend outrageous sums for hearing aids?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    45. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Except that this is not the result of capitalism. This is the result of government regulation.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    46. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

      Medical regulations aren't causing the expense of your hearing aids. I don't know where the blame lies, but that almost certainly isn't it. The reason capitalism isn't necessarily fine with medicine is the number of suppliers is often so limited, there is no real competition.

      Government regulations are the primary reason why the number of suppliers is so limited. The regulations governing the manufacture and sale of medical devices are subject to interpretation and the FDA will not necessarily give you the definitive word on what the correct interpretation is.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    47. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by sjames · · Score: 2

      I guess I'd feel about like the vast majority of the workforce.

    48. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      I don't need them, but at my job I heard from another guy who does need them that our work insurance will pay up to something like $3,000 for ONE hearing aid. Doesn't matter if you want to get two $1,500 units, that's not allowed, they only cover one hearing aid. How retarded is that? Especially when the guy likes to ride road bicycles everywhere. Insurance is going to pay a ton more if he gets hospitalized in a bicyclist vs. car accident when he misses some sounds that might have kept him more safe.

    49. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by trout007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hearing aids are regulated by the FDA which is why it costs $5k or so in paperwork.

      Here is capitalism. It looks like a hearing aid but it is really a sound amplifier so it is not regulated by the FDA. It costs $70.
      http://www.amazon.com/Voxom-Hearing-Aid-Sound-Amplifier/dp/B005AM7S3K/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1315622221&sr=8-9

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    50. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, non-profits are such a great way to control costs. That's why college costs in the U.S. are so reasonable and only increase at a fraction of the rate of inflation....wait, no the cost of higher education in the U.S. goes up way faster than the rate of inflation, yet the overwhelming majority of Colleges and Universities are non-profit. So, maybe you should rethink your commitment to non-profits as the solution to medical costs spiraling out of control.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    51. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be a right at this current point in time, but if laws and rules change, it could be in the future. Just like anything else.

    52. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Life is a multiple tier system. There are products and services of all qualities based on price. It is up to you to determine how much you are willing to pay for what you want. If you take your argument that people all deserve the same quality service who gets to determine the quality? What happens if a person is unable to afford that quality product? They will be unable to buy an inferior product even if they are happy with it. Also it means no matter how talented a doctor is he can't be paid more than other doctors since there is one price.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    53. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by trout007 · · Score: 2

      It charges less money but requires you pay in other ways. Services are limited to only those approved by the single payer system. Like all price controls there is rationing where people have to wait for service.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    54. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prelude> let { myComment = fixedThatForYou yourComment } in putStrLn myComment
      You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans in the US don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint in the US. Ain't gonna happen.

    55. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fundamental to the concept of rights is reciprocity. In other words, if you call "A" a right but "A" involves violating someone else's rights, then "A" cannot be a right. Health Care can not exist without someone providing it through their labor. If that someone isn't paid for his labor, then in most cases he's doing it involuntarily: he's a slave to you. You have no right to enslave someone. If that someone is paid by another party without that party's permission (i.e. through taxes) then that party is being enslaved to the extent that the fruit of his labors is taken against his wishes. Again, you do not have the right to enslave someone.

      In America, medical care is expensive in part because of fascist-syndicalist laws restricting supply. The solution is neither socialism nor the status quo, it is freedom.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    56. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up troll.

    57. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      all-caps yelling the lameness filter won't permit.

      Only if you want worse care.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    58. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government? I wish people would call it what it really is: taxpayers. The government has no money of its own without collecting taxes. I don't know when people started referring to "the government" as some rich entity with infinite funds.

    59. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. I was born with hearing loss

      How can you lose what you didn't have? Shouldn't it mean you were born with impaired hearing?

    60. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes, I'm supposed to cover everyone else even though I don't want anyone to cover me.

    61. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by nanospook · · Score: 1

      I work for a major corporation and in all the years I've had insurance they only cover like 1500 or less and only once per 2.5 years. It's not a deal..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    62. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Half right. My grandpa was in the Navy and the Vet paid for his hearing aids.

      Seeing as every veteran probably has substantial hearing loss from small arms fire near their ears I think that's more than fair.

    63. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you've just got the definitions of the words wrong. (Entirely understandably so! The common use of them is vague).

      Formally: profit is what's left over after all expenses are covered, which includes wages and, if I recall correctly, even R&D and expansion. Wages are paid out of revenue (the money the company is paid by its customers in return for its product/services). And only the profit is subject to corporate income tax. When you read about some company making 10% profit, that is literally the money left over after absolutely every expense, and goes into banks, investments, or the owners or shareholders.

      Non-profits exist to provide some necessary service at-cost, where it would otherwise either not exist, or not be affordable. For example, most municipal water systems - they're usually initially built through taxes, but thereafter maintained by user fees and make no profit at all. Or the US Post Office, back in the 1990s, when it was entirely self supporting through the cost of postage.

      Just to reiterate: no one is suggesting things be provided for free.

    64. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 1

      Since you're trying to argue from your own authority, I'll ask. What role do you have in the field of "stem cell research" that pays you a wage rather than a salary or a grant?

    65. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be modded up but slashdot idealists are having trouble deciding weather to help deaf people, or mod a pro capitolist post up.

    66. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jcr · · Score: 1

      > what we still have here is an FDA-controlled cartel.

      Bingo. The FDA is the means by which nearly all medical devices are made far more expensive than they should be.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    67. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're both correct. The original poster was correct to point out that health care is a right in Australia, because it is. Not all rights are natural rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Natural rights are universal and have nothing to do with customs or societal standards. But there are other rights that are based upon societal standards and are not equal across all cultures. These include things like the right to vote, the right to free education, the right to trial by jury, etc. Just like free primary and secondary education is a right in the US, in most developed countries health care is a right. In the United States, it is not. (Well, it actually kind of is in a really messed up and inefficient way, but you get the idea).

      You have the correct idea that there is a distinction between what the government grants as a claim and what you are guaranteed as a liberty, but your vocabulary is slightly off. Instead of liberties versus rights, what you're actually contrasting are claim rights and liberty rights. But both are still rights.

    68. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      It is not right for the government to take resources from everyone in the form of taxes, and then use them to provide resources to individuals, even if it's to each individual.

      You mean like roads? Municipal water supplies? Sewage treatment?

    69. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't want any taxes levied at all?

      It's a fair stance, but people tend to forget that taxes pay for a shit-ton of things they want themselves, that someone else probably don't want.

      Some people don't want taxes to pay for health care.
      Some people don't want taxes to pay for education.
      Some people don't want taxes to pay for police.
      Some people don't want taxes to pay for military.
      Some people don't want taxes to pay for infrastructure.
      Some people don't want taxes to pay for fire departments.

      And so on and so forth.

      Someone, somewhere, doesn't want to either pay taxes or have their taxes paying for something that someone else deems necessary.

      So my question is - what is your solution to this quandary?

    70. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by wisty · · Score: 1

      If they can *sell* them for $100, they might be making a $40 profit. So they only need to sell 1/200th as many.

      And you wonder why US medicine is expensive?

      In Australia, the PBS will subsidize stuff, but only *after* they have cut a deal with the suppliers. Monopoly vs. monopoly is a lot fairer.

    71. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Insurance/Government pays for it. Why not jack up the price?

      You wouldn't know of jacking up the price until you've heard of Crimson Corporation!

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    72. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

      So by your reasoning that the government shouldn't take resources from everyone to pay for things individuals use, the government also shouldn't provide:
      -roads
      -bridges
      -fire/police/EMT services
      -water utilities
      etc...

      I would argue, that healthcare, like many of the other services the government offers, is precisely the type of thing a government should offer for these reasons - A) It is a common, public service. Everyone at some point in their life will need healthcare. EVERYONE. So it stands to reason that if everyone is paying in to a healthcare system, they'll eventually benefit from it. B) The government exists to 'provide for the common Welfare'. It stands to reason that a healthy population, like a robust transport network and public safety, are in the best interests of the government. A healthy population means more productivity, higher GDP growth, less uncertainty among the populace and better overall satisfaction.

      Its hard to see any reason why the government should NOT provide a basic level of healthcare as a public service.

    73. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ever a post deserved a "mod up!", this would be it.

    74. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Half right. My grandpa was in the Navy and the Vet paid for his hearing aids.

      Seeing as every veteran probably has substantial hearing loss from small arms fire near their ears I think that's more than fair.

      Not to mention jet engines.

      Run a wire from your ear to your pocket. It makes people talk louder.

      --

      I can't hear you; I've got a bubble in my ear.

    75. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      It is not right for the government to take resources from everyone in the form of taxes, and then use them to provide resources to individuals, even if it's to each individual. If groups of people want to band together voluntarily for that purpose, that's great. In fact, at the fundamental level that's what government is.

      FTFY

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    76. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by unitron · · Score: 1

      My father used to be an automobile insurance adjuster for Motors Insurance Company (sort of an auxiliary to General Motors Acceptance Corporation).

      That (attempt to be the best they can at their job) was the only way he knew how to do it.

      Fortunately for his conscience, he didn't work for a health insurance company.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    77. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      It charges less money but requires you pay in other ways. Services are limited to only those approved by the single payer system. Like all price controls there is rationing where people have to wait for service.

      We have rationing in the for-profit space too. It's just that instead of waiting lists, the service goes to the person with the most money and everyone else gets bumped.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    78. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by imroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.

      It does here in Australia:

      The Australian Department of Health and Ageing provides eligible Australian citizens and residents with a basic hearing aid free-of-charge, though recipients can pay a "top up" charge if they wish to upgrade to a hearing aid with more or better features. Maintenance of these hearing aids and a regular supply of batteries is also provided, on payment of a small annual maintenance fee.

    79. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A regulation-free medical industry is one where you get loads of useless homoeopathic and similar remedies, and there is no guarantee that they will work as described or be safe.

    80. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      http://www.bupa.co.uk/

      It works pretty well.

    81. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0

      Seeing as every veteran probably has substantial hearing loss from small arms fire near their ears I think that's more than fair.

      Indeed. Where would Europe be today if you guys hadn't saved us from Hitler 66 years ago... Thanks alot for your heroism!

    82. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away Soci-Joo.
      We don't need your kind here.

    83. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Capitalism, or free market? Not exactly the same thing.

      Capitalism.

      I get that the medical industry cannot be a true free market. I also get that it cannot be healthy in the quagmire of regulation and greed that we find it.

      You also have a third party involved which is the doctor.

      And a fourth and fifth and sixth party (hospital, insurance, pharmaceutical co / medical hardware, etc). The doctor is rarely the real problem in medical costs.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    84. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      I think the same is true in the UK - you can get the bog standard set free from the NHS, or you can pay out of your own pocket for a more expensive set.

      The problem for my mum is that for her, that's not an optional upgrade. She needs the background noise filtering functions in her expensive hearing aids in order to hear.

    85. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Where the @#$% did you get "regulation-free"?

      (Think about it for at least 60 seconds before you respond.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    86. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Want a good argument for regulation? Glad to oblige.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    87. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

      A regulation-free medical industry is one where you get loads of useless homoeopathic and similar remedies, and there is no guarantee that they will work as described or be safe.

      mod parent up.

    88. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by lastx33 · · Score: 1

      Profit is the excess money after research, manufacture, cost of sales and other overheads are paid for. Not-for-profit means precisely that - any surplus is put back into the enterprise, reinvested and not taken as profit. Much of the failure of western economies lies in profit-taking at the expense of investing in future stability and innovation.

      --
      "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
    89. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A regulation-free medical industry is one where you get loads of useless homoeopathic and similar remedies"

      Er, unlike the medical industry we have now, presumably.

    90. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by trout007 · · Score: 2

      I almost didn't want to link to it because I'm sure there are a few people here that think this company is taking advantage of those with hearing loss since it's not an FDA approved device and they might report it and get them to remove this product. I wish people would read the comments. It's all people that needed a hearing aid but couldn't afford the FDA approved ones. Many people admit that it isn't quite as good as the FDA ones but for them it's a better choice. And that is what a free market is about. Government regulations is about a bunch of politicians getting paid by lobbyists to set the legal hurdle so high it grants them a defacto monopoly. It would be like BMW getting a lobbyist to get the politicians to pass a law saying all cars must be equipped with all of the devices on the 7 series. Would cars be better? Sure for those can afford them. But I don't want or need all of that stuff. I'm happy with the technology and features on a 8 year old Accord.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    91. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by tepples · · Score: 1

      where do you think the money to pay those "wages that are not profit" comes from?

      From revenue. Profit is what's left after rent, wages, imaginary property licenses, and cost of goods sold are taken out of revenue. The difference between a for-profit and a non-profit organization is that all dividends from a non-profit are reinvested in the organization instead of being distributed to shareholders.

    92. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      How odd... you think it's fashionable to wear bluetooth earpieces, I think it just makes people look like idiots.... diff'rent strokes, I guess.

      There are, however, hearing "aid" devices available that are designed to look like a bluetooth earpiece. I've seen them advertised on TV on the rare occasion that I watch a US station. They are fairly cheap, too... yours for 5 easy payments of only $19.95, if you order within the next 5 minutes for this special TV offer. No clue what the quality of the devices is, but seeing as they aren't fighting space considerations the way the in-ear hearing aids do, I imagine it's actually fairly decent, if a bit hissy.

    93. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      It costs $70 because it's not a serious hearing aid for people that need hearing aids.

      To start with, most people don't lose hearing evenly across the sound spectrum. Someone may have lost 80% of their hearing in the high range while retaining most of their hearing in the low range. Devices like that amplify across the board aren't really comparable to a device designed to only amplify those areas where there is a loss.

      Secondly, if it amplifies enough to help people with a profound hearing loss, odds are good enough that it amplifies enough to damage other people's hearing. My suspicion is that it doesn't amplify enough to help most people with a serious hearing loss.

      These things don't mean that there isn't a place for something like this. Just like there is a place for the rack of cheap reading glasses at the drug store there is a place for this sort of inexpensive device for people with a mild loss.

    94. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      I think you've got that backwards.

      Hearing aids are inexpensive in most of the world because they're subsidized by the government.

      In the US, very few classes of people (say, Congressmen and veterans) have their hearing aids subsidized by the government (or insurance for that matter) and pay out of pocket.

    95. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Government regulations are the primary reason why the number of suppliers is so limited. The regulations governing the manufacture and sale of medical devices are subject to interpretation and the FDA will not necessarily give you the definitive word on what the correct interpretation is.

      Patents, specifically. For generics whose patents have expired, or which have been opened to the public, it's actually really cheap to get drugs/equipment. Equipment not as much as drugs, but to an extent it holds true as well. Removing patent enforcement would be a very bad idea, however, because the government doesn't exactly have a history of spending gobs and gobs of cash on medical research lately... those patents and limited supply chains exist to make it profitable for companies to develop new drugs/treatments.

      What should be going away is the ability to change the encapsulation of a drug without changing the drug itself (Citalopram - Escitalopram, for example, have exactly the same active drug, just a different way of encapsulating the drug). When you can make a minor change to the chemical formula of a drug without changing its mechanism of action, nor the chemical composition of the active elements, you shouldn't be able to renew the patent and continue selling it under a new name.

    96. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Research is what the government SHOULD be funding, precisely because it is a high-risk-for-uncertain-returns-but-utterly-necessary part of health care. We ALL benefit from that research (either directly or indirectly by living in a healthier society) so it is perfectly reasonable for us to pay taxes to help fund it. If capitalism is focused on cheaply (but safely) PRODUCING and APPLYING the stuff research is developing, that's when it makes sense to be capitalistic since it will probably be more efficient. Even there, I think non-profit still makes sense - human health is just a poor mix with greed, health usually loses. Economically, taking care of sick people (particularly end of life care) is often a net-negative proposition. The sick people will never contribute enough economically to society to make up for the resources their care is consuming. So the fundamental question we as a society need to ask is "do we still help them?" If we do, profit as a motivator makes no sense at all.

    97. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gizmonic · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite on this, because I just had a house fire. I won't mention the insurance company by name (if you want to know, ask me) but they have been unbelievably helpful. I've used them for years despite being higher priced than their competitors because of the service I've received and how helpful everyone has been over the claims I've had in the past. We've had a few hiccups along the way with rebuilding the house, and not a single one was due to the insurance company, in fact, they 've stepped in and helped smooth them out from time to time.

      Now granted, that's not Health Insurance, but it is an insurance company, and I really have thought that they were doing heir best to do their job. Sure, their main function is to pay for everything, but they've definitely gone far beyond that. :)

      But as for health insurance, no, I don't really ever recall thinking that, but then, the previous company we had was more helpful than the current one they switched us to, which is pretty useless.

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
    98. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with that. It's possible to set up a single payer system that everyone pays into as we do with insurance. The good part about that is government isn't on the take and marking up the rates due to artificial inflation. If they were, they would have to answer to the citizens, and not the stockholders. The great thing about this is you don't have to enslave anyone, because everyone will be working on the same system that's employed in the private healthcare industry, which isn't slavery now. Switching providers from Met Life to Fed Health shouldn't be that big of an ordeal.

      IMO, the real problem people have is the FUD being spewed by the healthcare industry because they stand to lose a lot of profits. They might even be fighting for their very existence, but I don't think they're entitled to exist when they fleece their customers, collude with competition, and refuse to employ price control. Why try to act right and serve customers better when it's easier to scare people with talk about "death panels", "enslavement" and "communism". Hell, it might cost a bit to lobby, but it's cheaper than changing how you do business.

      --
      Sig not found.
    99. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by joocemann · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong. Single payer systems are set up to cover the total medical costs of the people. Medical delay and rationing is from doctor/hospital/nurse scarcity, which is a completely different issue. In the US, there will be the same availability for your kidney transplant or your colonoscopy REGARDLESS of whether private or single payer was used to pay for it. I'm glad to make the truth clear to you. It would appear you thought the insurance companies actually control the availability of doctors...

    100. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by matfud · · Score: 2

      The NHS has quite a wide range of hearing aids that they can prescribe depending on the type of hearing loss you have. You can buy privately as well and still be entitled to free ones from the NHS. They also provide batteries.

      In the UK privately purchased hearing aids cost between £500 and £4000.

    101. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by PickyH3D · · Score: 1

      And that's why you're ignorant.

      "Disagreeing viewpoint? Must not read! Must only talk to individuals with the exact same mindset, allowing me to sound more intelligent!"

      It just goes to show that your anecdotal evidence from your Canadian friends were from like minded individuals. What they say very well may be true, but I am far less likely to believe it coming from a person not even willing to read about--let alone discuss--the alternative.

      The poster that you responded to had a very good, clear point. Corruption is the problem here, and not capitalism. It is very likely that regulation and a cartel are maintaining costs at their current levels, and increasing them.

      In the computer world, this is analogous to the problem that faced RAM in the past couple of years. Break up the cartel(s) that almost certainly existent, and prices will plummet due to competition--at least as far as regulations will allow them to fall.

      The fact of the matter is, it is very likely because of the corruption in the government that prices are this way to begin with. Their hand is just as much in the cookie jar as these companies, and the fact that nothing has been done about it shows that a shakeup is necessary on both sides to remind them that they are capitalists, and that the government is supposed to represent the watchdogs.

      At what point did people decide that the watchdogs should become the providers as well? In what situation does that lead to better performance? There is absolutely no incentive to improve at that point, and that's the problem.

      The government, as the watchdogs, should be protecting people from corruption and anti-consumer practices. They have clearly failed at their job. Now, you want to give them the job of those they are supposed to be watching even before correcting their current job?

    102. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Drugs are a different issue than medical devices. This does not mean that I disagree with the point you made, just that that the issues surrounding medical devices are different and patents are less of an issue than the regulatory hurdles necessary to compete in the medical device market.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    103. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      provides legal protections against rampant malpractice lawsuits without merit, thus lessening the need for costly malpractice insurance.

      FYI, Texas instituted malpractice caps and protections several years ago that put it in line with Canada, I believe. Since those protections were put in place, malpractice premiums have increased 30%.

      It's not the lawsuits driving up malpractice costs; it's the malpractice insurers gouging the doctors. It's a distraction anyway. Currently only 2.5% of U.S. health care dollars are in the area of malpractice lawsuits and insurance. To flesh out your latter point, 28% of U.S. health care dollars are spent on administration, compared to 16% in Canada.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    104. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      And yet, Canada, England, and all those other countries with universal health care still have doctors and nurses, and those countries have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, better on virtually any aggregate health score you can name. By any statistical measure, citizens of UHC countries get far better health care than an American does.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    105. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by PickyH3D · · Score: 1

      Did you intentionally link to a health insurance company, in a country with an existing single payer system?

      Sure, it's still a private company. But you failed the latter portion of his point simply because the company itself is an insurance company, and it is not even in the US.

      You know what's the best thing about that link? It shows that capitalism works in health care.

    106. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. we donate to PBS so we can watch shows made in Australia. This, of course, explains the lack of donations.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    107. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't pay road taxes if I didn't own a car (they're funded with gasoline taxes and license-plate fees), and while my city government owns the municipal water and sewer system I pay a per-gallon fee for water and sewage - the system pays for itself. The rural areas around here have non-governmental cooperatives that provide water and sometimes sewer service (if you get far enough out, you have to use a septic tank).

      His reasoning isn't wonderful, but all of those things are paid for with user fees or with taxes levied only on those who use them.

    108. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The hearing aids offered under Medicare in Australia are bulky and simply not that good. If you want anything halfway decent (i.e. that can be used in crowded restaurants or other demanding situations), you'll have to stump up yourself. And depending on the nature of your hearing loss, it won't come cheap.

      My hearing aids were horrendously expensive, but fortunately my health insurance fund (GMHBA) is generous, and reimbursed over half of the cost.

    109. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      a basic level of healthcare

      Most do, even in the US - ever gotten an immunization at your county health department? The argument is largely about what "a basic level of healthcare" is. And the proponents of government-provided health care in the US seem absolutely dedicated to arguing for combining the worst aspects of the Canadian system and the NHS instead of creating something that works - hence the opposition. You don't hear them arguing that we should expand Medicaid to cover anyone who wants it.

      Incidentally, roads, bridges, water/sewer, and EMT services all have either specific taxes (like car licensure fees) or direct user fees (ambulance rides aren't free, and neither is my water service). Only fire and police are paid out of the general fund. If you've ever seen how much people bitch and moan about insurance copays, you know how popular similar fees for government-provided health care would be. Everyone wants Blue Cross service at NHS prices... but one or the other has to give.

    110. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      government isn't on the take

      Take off the rose-colored glasses.

    111. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      Non-profits can and often do take in revenue in excess of their costs (they wouldn't be very stable otherwise!) The difference is what tax law allows them to do with those profits (reinvest in their business vs. distribute to the owners).

    112. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      There is some logic to that. They're mitigating against people who would automatically demand the most expensive hearing aid that insurance would pay for. By paying for just one hearing aid, only the people who reeeally want and need the more expensive model would demand it, since they have to pay for the other unit out of pocket.

      However, there are some people with hearing loss only in one ear. So they would demand a single $3000 model whether they really need it or not. A more sensible rule would be for insurance to pay for 50% of the hearing aid costs (up to the $3000 maximum), whether the money is used to buy one or two units.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    113. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight. You are saying that the price controls in a single layer system have no effect on availability of services? Why do you think there is a shortage of doctors in all single lay health systems? The reason is two fold. First the person using the service doesn't have to pay so there is no incentive to conserve the resources. Also since the price the government is willing to lay for services is fixed there is no signal to increase the supply of doctors or nurses. In a for profit system the profits serve as a signal there there is unmet demand and mo people enter that field.

      What happens when a store on the day after thanksgiving reduces some prices below costs? People wait in line and there is never enough products to fill the demand. This is how a single payer helth care system always works.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    114. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by rk · · Score: 1

      Fashionable and looking like an idiot aren't mutually exclusive, you know. I think there are many "fashionable" things that make people look like idiots. That having pants down to your thighs and your underwear exposed look for starters. I'm not a violent person normally, but every time I see some punk-ass bitch wearing his pants like that, I want to crack his skull.

    115. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you are wrong, if this device had to be approved by the FDA it would cost just as much as other hearing aids. You don't think they could put filters to only amplify certain frequencies? I have a $10 radio with an EQ.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    116. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the government is charging thousands of dollars per hearing aid in paperwork? Highly doubtful.

    117. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      "FYI, Texas instituted malpractice caps and protections several years ago that put it in line with Canada, I believe. Since those protections were put in place, malpractice premiums have increased 30%."

      Haven't those premiums increased more in most other states?

      "It's not the lawsuits driving up malpractice costs; it's the malpractice insurers gouging the doctors. It's a distraction anyway. Currently only 2.5% of U.S. health care dollars are in the area of malpractice lawsuits and insurance. To flesh out your latter point, 28% of U.S. health care dollars are spent on administration, compared to 16% in Canada."

      However, the cost of malpractice goes beyond lawsuits and insurance. Defensive medicine adds to the cost of testing and treatments, and many avoid certain specialties (e.g. ob/gyn) with high rates of malpractice lawsuits, resulting in the doctors in those specialties charging more due to lower supply and higher risk.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    118. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      take solace... he'll probably trip and do it to himself the first time he tries going up/down stairs with more than 6" height between steps.

    119. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? There is currently zero capitalism in U.S. medicine.

    120. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Haven't those premiums increased more in most other states?

      In some, yes, but in most others, no, IIRC. Texas has been held up as an example of unreasonable malpractice premiums just because its rate increases are vastly out of line with the potential liability, especially since the caps put in place were explicitly designed to trigger reductions in premiums.

      However, the cost of malpractice goes beyond lawsuits and insurance.

      To a degree, yes, but the high cost of defensive medecine isn't the medicine itself, it's due to another perverse incentive built into the U.S. health care system, namely that 1) because hospitals are required to treat people who come to emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay, to the point of stabilization, and 2) because insurers don't control the providers costs, all medicine in the the U.S. is overpriced because providers overcharge insurers to cover the costs of providing health care to those who can't pay because they don't have or can't get health insurance.

      To put it a bit more simply, there are various legal and moral requirements to provide health care that U.S. providers do actually provide to those who can't pay, and they cover the cost of providing those services by overcharging those who can pay. In one sense, the U.S. health care system does have universal coverage, it just has it in the most economically inefficient way possible.

      The root flaw of the U.S. health care system is that, just because it's a (somewhat) free market, you have a bunch of independent agents each of whom has an incentive to gouge the other agents. Insurers dump high cost patients on the government; doctors and hospitals screw the insurers; the young and healthy don't buy into the system because they don't need health care right now, then they show up in the emergency room when it'll cost 10 or 20 times to treat them what it would cost if they just got regular checkups.

      The reason that the UHC countries spend 45% less for what's objectively better medicine overall is that they've removed most of those perverse incentives.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    121. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      FEWER... FEWER... Why does everyone here assume I meant NONE?!?! ARE YOU BLIND? Are the words similar in braille or something?

      Anyone arguing for no medical regulation is and idiot. I, sir, have my weak points, but I am not an idiot.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    122. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      I hope he reads your first sentence, at least.

      Seriously, though, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    123. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Well, there is the other side: my co-worker who needs both, isn't going to pay even $1,500 out of pocket, and only got one. I'm assuming he got the $3,000 model for the worst ear. We all know which side to stand on to talk to him.

      I'm not sure if it is like eye insurance - where you get either one pair of glasses or contacts each year - so you get glasses this year, contacts the next, and alternate.

      However, if it is, he'll just get the second hearing aid in a year or two.

    124. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification on the vocabulary. There is a distinction between something the government has said it will provide and something a government must provide. The fact that Australia provides its citizens with health care doesn't make health care a right, even in Australia. It makes it a promised service. The poster was claiming, of course, that health care is a right, but that's precisely what I was disputing.

    125. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 1

      Roads and bridges aren't given to a single person, rather they are provided for all to use; despite that fact, if there were a practical way to do so it would absolutely make sense for road building and maintenance to be funded by fees for use rather than on tax revenue. And if private companies wanted to get into the business of building roads and charging for their use, that would be a good thing too. Again, police provide a public service that covers everyone rather than one that helps an individual. And in those cases where police are acting in a private interest, such as escorting a sports team's motorcade, I certainly hope they are charging for that service. EMT services already do charge you for use, and there already are private companies providing it. You have a point about fire. I'm not sure exactly how that operates. Do they charge a fee after putting out a fire or assisting at an accident? Water utilities are paid for by the people using them.

      Health care is like the water utility or, not surprisingly, the EMT service in the above. In most cases, it is not a common, public service. If I go and get a heart transplant, that is a service provided to me not to everyone. Health care is provided to an individual. If you use something, you should pay for it. Providing for the common welfare doesn't mean going out and satisfying all needs and wants. That's simply impossible. Resources allocated to one thing, like health care, are not allocated elsewhere, now whatever you just took resources from is failing to satisfy whatever needs it was filling. There are aspects of health care that are public services rather than private ones. Immunizations, for example, prevent spread of disease to others, and so are a preventative service for the whole (somewhat akin to police service). Another example is fundamental medical research. These services I would agree it makes sense for the government to be providing at some level. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind by "basic level of healthcare."

    126. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It is a not for profit company that competes with the NHS.

    127. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your position is unpopular here because life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are posited as unalienable rights in the United States Declaration of Independence. Since none of those are possible without proper medical care, your stance, making medical care a "liberty" is the system we have now, and it means that "unalienable rights" apply only to those who can afford it; this isn't logically consistent.

      Costs are demonstrably higher under the "liberty" system than they would be under a "rights" system; this is easily verified by looking at nations that treat medical care as a "right" and seeing that they pay much less. No need for hypothesis or guesswork. The data is freely available to anyone who is actually interested in the truth.

    128. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the keyword here is "eligible". Australian citizens who are eligible for a free hearing aid are children and young adults (under 21), old-age pensioners, and certain welfare recipients. Adults of working age generally have to pay the full price themselves, and the prices are similar to those in the US.

    129. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hearing aids are provided under Medicare in Australia - to everyone who needs them - for free.

      No, that's incorrect. Hearing aids are not provided free to everyone through Medicare in Australia.
      Adults who are working generally have to pay for them out of their own pocket.

      Private health insurance might cover part of the cost if you take out "extras" cover, but it is usually capped at a fairly small amount.

    130. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree with you. As you say, roads and bridges aren't given to a single person, they're provided for all to use. And police and fire provide a public service as well. But at the same time, all of these, while benefitting society, are also provided to individuals, which you seem to be against. Take for example the fire department - if my house is on fire, the fire department comes to put out the fire. Is this aiding an individual? I'd say arguably yes, while at the same time as aiding society. Sometimes the two go hand in hand. Roads and bridges are the same way... they're a public infrastructure, but used by individuals, for their individual needs (and at different rates of usage, I should add).

      So along these same lines, healthcare is arguably a public service. I'm not saying people shouldn't have to pay for it... but like many of the other public services the government provides which most people will likely need and use at one point or another in their lives (roads, bridges, fire, police), the government has the responsibility to provide healthcare as well.

      So whats a 'basic level of healthcare'? I'll use France as an example (I live there so I have experience in the system). In France, everybody is automatically covered under 'Security Social' or 'Secu' for short. Essentially, Secu is a system of reimbursement (like insurance) for health care needs. For most things, Secu covers about 60% of the cost, but can cover up to 100% depending on the procedure. However, Secu doesn't cover dental visits, corrective eyewear, or most prescriptions. If you want more coverage on medical procedures, plus dental, presription and eyewear coverage, then you have the option of getting a 'top-up' private insurance (mine for example costs 30€/month).

      So as an example, when I go see a general practitioner, I pay 23€ (the cost of a visit at any public general practitioner). If I had just Secu, I would get reimbursed 60% of that about a week later, so the final cost to me is around 9€. With my 'top-up' insurance, I pay 0.

    131. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 1

      While an individual does use a road, that road isn't built for the individual. There's just no practical way to provide the service that way. The closest we can come is use tolls, and I am definitely in favor of more roads charging tolls. You are right about the fire service, but who pays for that? It seems to me that if someone is at fault for the fire they should be billed by the fire department for the service of having put it out. If nobody's at fault then whomever owns the property would pay.

      Two principles guide this stance. The first is that people should pay for what consume. Health care as a service consumes resources. Detaching costs from usage encourages inefficient use of the service. On the other hand if people are paying for the resources they consume, then people will tend in aggregate to make the optimal decisions with respect to when and how to spend those resources on health care. In addition, if health care funding is coming from the income tax pool, then it is coming from a source where people with higher income are unjustly paying a disproportionate share of the funding, in essence footing the bill for people with lower incomes. The second is that services that can be justly and practically supplied privately should predominantly be supplied privately. It is simply not the government's role or responsibility to satisfy all needs and wants. Government attempting to be a great service provider is similar to a monopoly, with its attendant inefficiencies and danger of being "too big to fail." Even if it weren't inefficient, it is too much power to aggregate in one place.

      The health care services I think the government could provide are those where in a general sense society benefits collectively for each individual serviced. That is why I gave the immunization example earlier. Every time one person gets immunized everyone else's chances of succumbing to an epidemic decrease. However even in these cases I think it makes more sense for the government to calculate the incremental value to society of each immunization and subsidize private providers in that amount (if there's remaining cost the provider eats the cost or more likely charges a fee; if the subsidy exceeds the cost then the providers keeps the money or more likely offers incentives to individuals).

      On a side note. Thanks for the intelligent, civil argumentation. That's rare on the internet, especially on issues that tend to get emotionally charged.

    132. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by joocemann · · Score: 1

      We were talking about the INSURANCE company making profit over the costs of providing services; then you somehow got confused and thought the wages that doctors make are called "profits" (they aren't) and somehow pretended that for-profit insurance companies can afford to take more money out (profit), charge you less, and pay doctors more. You should learn what PROFIT is first, then how medical payments are made, then think for a while.... then get back to me.

    133. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by joocemann · · Score: 1

      No. Capitalism and medicine, ethically, are mutually exclusive. To suggest otherwise is an immediate tell of unethical pursuits.

    134. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Oh? And just what unethical pursuits am I involved in?

      I am in no way shape or form involved in the medical industry, medical practice, medical insurance, et al.

      You're just an unhappy troll in need of people to badger. I bet it doesn't really make you feel happy. You just wish that it did.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    135. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      ... the last time I called Amica, then again, I'd suspect all mutual insurers to be this way....

    136. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      The fact that Australia provides its citizens with health care doesn't make health care a right, even in Australia.

      It does, actually. The fact that the Australian government is legally obliged to provide health service to every Australian equally is exactly what makes it a right. It's a claim right, in the same way that the right to vote or the right to free education is a claim right.

      You are correct to make the distinction between something a government promises to provide and something the government *must* provide. There are some things that the government provides, but which are not actual rights guaranteed to each person equally. Like health care in the USA. Or police service, fire service, the right to vote, etc. But in Australia health care is a right. It is something guaranteed by the government to every person equally. In Australia, the government *must* provide free health care to every citizen.

      I think what you are probably thinking is that health care is not a natural right. You are of the opinion that health care *shouldn't* be a right, because it's not something that is universally accepted as necessary of a democratic government. Which is certainly a valid opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that the provision of health care is a legal right in Australia and most other developed countries.

      An analog is the right to bear arms. In the USA, we have the right to own weapons for our personal defense. But in most countries, that is not a right. In the USA, it is. The fact that most other countries don't have the right to bear arms does not make it any less of a right in the USA. Many countries provide free university education to their citizens. In those countries, that is a right. In the USA, it is not.

    137. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Small correction, I shouldn't have put the right to vote in the second paragraph.

    138. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by Intropy · · Score: 1

      It appears we each have a different view as to what rights are. My view is that rights are something which people are entitled independent of their location. Some governments alienate their citizens' rights, but that doesn't make them no longer rights. Some (all, really) governments promise their citizens all sorts of things that are not rights. I acknowledge there is a gray area here; some of these rights are really "first order" but rather rights that are necessary for another rights. For example the right to vote is not fundamental, it is just how most republics implement a more fundamental right to participation and influence in governance (I don't think I'm verbalizing that well, but hopefully my point is understood).

    139. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Well, we both do have a different view of what rights are. It's just that mine is the correct one :)

      What you are talking about are natural rights. Natural rights are independent of location and are universal to all of humanity. But that's not the only type of right. There are other rights, like the right to vote, right to bear arms, and others that are determined culturally, through the legislature, etc. This isn't just my opinion. This is how the law works.

      Since the original poster is an Australian citizen, he has the right to free health care. Since I am an American citizen who is above 18 and doesn't have a felony conviction, I have the right to vote. Since I am an American citizen above 21 without any felony convictiosn, I have the right to purchase a handgun. Just because these things are not universal does not make them rights. They're just a different classification of rights.

      Take a look at this for more clarification since I'm not sure if I'm being very articulate in my argument :rights

    140. Re:Since no one ever buys them... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I accidentally hit submit. This is the link I meant to put at the end.

  5. WHAT?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WHAT?!

  6. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?

    1. Re:Huh? by Eudial · · Score: 0

      THEY ARE SPEAKING ABOUT SOME CRISIS OF REARING MAIDS!

      lowercasetextthatgoesonandonbutissadlynecessarytonottriggertheallcapsfilter

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Huh? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      He said, "The sheriff is near"!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "NO, dang blam [gibberish]! The sherriff is a ni-- [BONG!]"

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT ? A shortage of beering maids ? OMG !

  7. Ubiquitous insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should they lower their prices? The cost to have the device approved by the FDA means that there are few players. All of the players know the game. There is no free market but there can never be a free market due to the reason the FDA was formed.

    Now let gov't take it over. I won't be much affected as I have more than enough to weather such idiocy. You however will most likely die from it.

    1. Re:Ubiquitous insurance by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Why should they lower their prices? The cost to have the device approved by the FDA means that there are few players. All of the players know the game.

      Seems like a great opportunity for a blue-tooth headset manufacturer to differentiate their product line. Don't even advertise it as having hearing-aid functionality - if anything promote it as one of those "big ears" gimmicks like in the backs of comic books. If a $100 headset is even just 50% as good as a $5000 super-miniaturised hearing aid, word of mouth will be all it takes for them to being selling like hotcakes within a year.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Ubiquitous insurance by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

      There are products like this on the market already - I've seen the infomercial.

    3. Re:Ubiquitous insurance by swalve · · Score: 1

      Nice english, Senator. The FDA isn't the problem. The insurance companies are the problem. They are the ones that get in the way of consumers and producers. The FDA just sets a bare minimum of serviceability for the devices.

  8. My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember my mom and her husband went on vacation and had some trouble with his hearing aid. Basically, he plugged it in to recharge it and the charger burnt out; it could only handle U.S. voltages. The couple staying in the room next door saw the blackened charger sitting in front of their door and asked what had happened. They found the whole thing very strange. They were European, and their hearing aid charger could adapt to any global voltage, and they had never heard of one that worked otherwise. If I remember right, the woman's own hearing aid was also significantly higher-tech than my mom's husband's. It was not only smaller, but it fit deep into the ear canal (I'm not talking about a cochlear implant, this was a hearing aid). The important thing here is that my parents, living in the U.S., had neither seen nor heard of either technology. Their doctor had given them a couple of choices for a hearing aid and they chose the better one -- which obviously wasn't as good as what you could pick up in Europe. I don't know what they paid for the hearing aid, but it seems to me like something funny is going on.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      And my mother-in-law spent about $3K for her hearing aid, got something that basically hid in her ear, and used replaceable batteries.

      Don't know what my dad's cost, but he a notorious tightwad, so I doubt it was $3K, and his also fit into his ear and used replaceable batteries.

      Sounds like your dad made a bad choice in hearing aids.

      It should also be pointed out that getting a standard American plug into a 220V socket is the next best thing to impossible. It certainly wasn't done without some work on your dad's part....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      And my mother-in-law spent about $3K for her hearing aid, got something that basically hid in her ear, and used replaceable batteries.

      I have behind-the-ear hearing aids that use replaceable batteries; they last ten to fifteen days. My mother used an older style that fit inside the ear and needed to be molded to fit. They used batteries too. In fact, I've never seen a hearing aid that needed a charger. The OP's story must be very, very old.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "It's probably illegal to sell the european one in the USA. Not FDA approved and all that.

      "

      It is also illegal to pirate software. However, when you are out of work or live in a poor country like China people do not care and do what they need to do. The drug companies and the US government can kiss my ass if they expect me to go in debt and starve if I can't hear because MegaCorp wants a higher price so the CEO can get his bonus.

      Collusion is illegal and highly unethical. Yet colluded by bribing US politicians to screw people over with silly laws insuring monopolistic prices at the tax payer and non insured expense is somehow ok.

    4. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your dad made a bad choice in hearing aids.

      My point is, he chose from the only choices that were offered to him. I'm not sure if this was before or after he was forced onto Medicare -- but even then, he does pay extra for supplemental care. Nobody showed him anything high-tech. (He's not my dad, BTW.)

      It should also be pointed out that getting a standard American plug into a 220V socket is the next best thing to impossible. It certainly wasn't done without some work on your dad's part....

      Pretty much any hotel will give you an adapter. Some of the adapters will have warnings on them telling you only to use this or that type of device, but many don't. They probably should have known better, but then, all my high-tech equipment seems to be rated for 220V, so why?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    5. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should also be pointed out that getting a standard American plug into a 220V socket is the next best thing to impossible. It certainly wasn't done without some work on your dad's part....

      Many parts of Asia use "American plug" outlets with 220V, as well as every other weird outlet format they've every manufactured for export to some other standards-happy country. They also often lack grounding and proper polarization of the hot and neutral contacts. Fun times...

    6. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      In fact, I've never seen a hearing aid that needed a charger. The OP's story must be very, very old.

      They're pretty commonplace. Like anything rechargeable, they're sold on the basis of "no more worrying about buying/replacing batteries." Think about people who travel and find themselves staying in RV parks in unfamiliar parts of the country, or who have arthritis and have trouble messing around with little batteries. A hearing aid that you can plug in and charge up from a wall socket is very handy -- provided, that is, it isn't built like crap.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by billcopc · · Score: 1

      It should also be pointed out that getting a standard American plug into a 220V socket is the next best thing to impossible. It certainly wasn't done without some work on your dad's part....

      You've clearly never been to Europe, or only in some relatively high-end areas. A lot of places have "american-style " NEMA 15-5 plugs, or even the older 2-prong style, but with 220-240V. The farther east you go, the more common this is. People use them with adaptors like it's part of the damn outlet.

      Electrical weirdness is quite commonplace, especially in impoverished areas.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by EdZ · · Score: 1

      A SMPS made on slightly above the minimum budget possible should be able to handle a fairly wide range of voltages and frequencies. I have plenty hanging about on or around my desk, and ALL of them handle 110-240v and 50-60Hz. The reason is likely not for consumer friendliness (though it's a nice byproduct) but simply so the same power supply can be sold everywhere rather than having to change the manufacturing process to produce 4 different models.

    9. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by gr8fulnded · · Score: 1

      Not all hearing aids work for all ears. It sounds like the people next to your parents have a very moderate hearing loss whereas your father has a level higher than that. I wear a BTE in one ear (other ear is just there for looks these days...doesn't work at all) because the inside-the-canal HA's simply aren't strong enough for me. If I had to guess, and this is purely a guess, it was a perfect situation of your hotel-mates didn't need stronger HA's and your father does. Neither one had a need to know of the other options available because the option THEY needed was the one that suited them.

    10. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "... obviously wasn't as good as what you could pick up in Europe. I don't know what they paid for the hearing aid, but it seems to me like something funny is going on."

      I would say that the "something funny" is just raw American ignorance. There's lots of higher-tech products and infrastructure in other countries. But we're brainwashed to believe that it's not, by definition, possible for America to be behind the curve. In many ways.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    11. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2

      Everyone rags on the FDA when there is some process or equipment that they personally want. But if some sub-par unregulated hearing aid destroyed the remaining hearing in their ears or the ears of someone they care about hell would be raised over the lack of oversight.

    12. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You cannot compare hearing aids only on the basis of the size and cutenest factor. The main point is your mom's husband may have a greater hearing loss than the European woman. The small device entering deep in the ear canal are suitable for those not having a too severe hearing loss condition. I know, I did own one and since my hearing loss is progressive it eventually needs to be replaced by a behind the ear device with much more amplification power. So, avoid this kind of comparisons. You must compare devices of a kind with devices of the same kind. They are targetted at different audiences.

      Here, we have coverage for hearing aids from the government. However, there is restrictions on the make, models and types of hearing aids we can pick from. There is a list reviewed every two years or so. Usually, the government make a deal with few manufacturers after asking them to answer to a public RFP (Request for proposals). They set guidelines and the manufacturers must bid as well on a 6 years maintenance plan for their own devices. Those with the lowest prices meeting the requirements for each category win. The drawbacks of this approach is the devices are always end-of-line models. If you want to pick one not on the list, you have to pay it in full. This permit most individuals with hearing loss to have access to hearing aids devices at the price of having access to low-end models only.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    13. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by hodet · · Score: 1

      How old are those hearing aids? Mine take diposable size 10 batteries.

    14. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I would say that the "something funny" is just raw American ignorance.

      I would say that the "something funny" is that his parents went along with
      "Their doctor had given them a couple of choices" instead of seeing what was on the market at what prices.
      Doctors essentially have a captive audience and they use that to maximum advantage when they try to sell you something.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    15. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to find adapters that plug into the European 220V socket and provide a US two- or three-prong socket. Small adapters will not adjust the voltage, though -- just the physical fit. An increasing number of wall warts tolerate both 120V and 220V to protect against that and to make stocking easier.

    16. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Informative
      This guy compares hearing aids not targetted at the same audience. The smaller is not better than the behind the ear one. The smaller device is for hearing impaired with low to medium hearing loss, while the behind the ear devices are designed for low to severe hearing loss. Both are available worldwide. The reason his mother's husband is not wearing a small in-ear device is probably his condition is too severe and this smaller device is not appropriate. Also, the behind the ear devices are having some buttons to switch functions, while this doesn't exist on in-ear devices. Often, eldery peoples prefer the behind the ear devices because they are easier to manipulate than the in-ear devices which cannot be turned off without removing them from the ear. And removing them requires some agility since you have a small nylon wire to pull to remove the device.

      Bottom line, your conclusion is not well founded given the original post.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    17. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Korea and Japan have much faster internet bandwidth.

      Many countries have longer expected lifespans.

      The US is behind on many fronts.

      But more likely it's that their doctor may be only getting products from his current supply pipeline, which do not offer the 'european version equivalent'. Their doctor might not know to search the internet for additional sources / models / options.
       

    18. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the USA is behind the curve in many ways indeed. To any foreign tourist it is blindingly obvious.

    19. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandmother on my father's side and I am both dumb, ignorant 'Mericans, with coal burnin' stove, no natural gas, and all that jazz.

      She was fitted for a hearing aid in March and received an in-ear model with Bluetooth, USB charging, 12V car adapter, and a 110/240V AC adapter with a number of international adapters.

      Oh, and it was paid for **in full** by Medicare -- (gov't health plan for retired persons for you snooty, small hearing aid Europeans).

      It was explained that the form factor of the hearing aid is dictated not only by price, but by level of hearing loss and shape of the outer ear.

    20. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have hearing aids that let you feel left out on the development in europe. These are the models our insurance will cover. So if you can you pay the premium (~4k€ left after health care) you go for that, because they are really that much better. You pay less if you enroll for one of the manufacturers field studies which happen a lot. This will also give you early access to the next generation. It sucks that you have to pay the full price instead of the difference in your health care system.

    21. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by jonbryce · · Score: 1
    22. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by ludwigf · · Score: 1

      I don't know what they paid for the hearing aid, but it seems to me like something funny is going on.

      I don't have a clue about hearing aid but I live in Europe and walk regularly past a shop selling them. There is a sign outside saying you don't have to pay anything as they are covered for by the basic healthcare insurance. Maybe you got to pay some fee to get the high-tech ones - again I've got no clue.

    23. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by rasherbuyer · · Score: 2

      Doctors essentially have a captive audience and they use that to maximum advantage when they try to sell you something.

      That is wrong on so many levels. It's called abuse of trust.

      Do your kids expect you to scam them? Do you try to scam your parents? Hey that's the American way - only a limited supply of parents/children per person so use that to your advantage to shaft them. It's OK, it's how a free market/capitalism works.

      You guys are seriously fucked up in the head.

    24. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by lastx33 · · Score: 1

      These ear-canal units are quite common in the UK and the better models such as this http://hearing.siemens.com/uk/04-products/28-imini/iMini.jsp can be programmed via a remote controller to adjust volume, tone and of course to switch them on and off. The in-ear-canal ones cost about GBP 1500-1600 here (around USD 2500). The behind-ear ones are usually much cheaper with a reasonably good one starting at about GBP 200 (USD 320) and more advanced ones with background noise suppression and automatic speech focussing from about GBP 400 (USD 640). In-ear but not deep ear canal models lie about half way between in price. Looking at some of the prices talked about in this thread the prices in the USA seem to be inflated.

      --
      "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
    25. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never been to Europe, or only in some relatively high-end areas.

      Years and years in (collectively) Germany, France, UK, Austria, Italy.

      Which are, admittedly, high-end areas in Europe, as opposed to former Soviet-bloc Europe.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in France, first price found on the net was 1300 €. into or around the ear. social security cut the price by half

    27. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      http://www.miracle-ear.com/

      They've been advertising them on US TV for more than 15 years, now. I find it hard to believe that your parents had never heard of the hearing aids that fit into the ear canal.

      That said, I don't find it difficult to believe that the charger they had wasn't designed to handle international voltages... sometimes it seems that many folks in the US are completely oblivious to the fact that other parts of the world do things differently (they get confused by those multiples of 10 in the metric system or something)... while universal input power supplies are common and cheap everywhere else in the world (even my $4 AA battery charger has universal input and charges each cell individually), they seem to be uncommon on stuff that's bought in the states, even smaller/portable stuff that people actually would take with them on a vacation.

    28. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by tibit · · Score: 1

      Heck, they'll usually handle 400Hz (aviation AC) too. Most switching supplies have a rectifier as a front-end, and it doesn't care much about frequency. The line filter may run a bit warmer at 400Hz. PFC supplies will balk at 400Hz, but non-PFC ones shouldn't. Heck, they'll usually handle DC as well (even PFCs!). I've been to an industrial setting without a single outlet in sight, but there was an inverter DC bus with 300V DC on it. My laptop's power supply ran just fine on it. DC is problematic when it comes to fuses, breakers and switches of course, because a DC arc does not self-extinguish like an AC arc would.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    29. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the behind the ear devices are having some buttons to switch functions, while this doesn't exist on in-ear devices.
      I saw an in-ear hearing aid with remote control in a journal, like, fifteen years ago.

    30. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Some doctors either don't know any better or possibly have a deal going on with the hearing aid suppliers.

      As for the charger, its not a technical marvel. The European hearing aid most likely used a switching power supply that can adapt to a wide voltage swing just like my phone charger does (they are very common and can run on 100-240 volts). The American model most likely had a linear power supply with a transformer that is only designed to run on 120 volts. Linear wall wart power supplies are always one voltage, no matter who makes them.

    31. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by ildon · · Score: 1

      They were European, and their hearing aid charger could adapt to any global voltage, and they had never heard of one that worked otherwise.

      That's basically every piece of European electronics vs. US electronics.

    32. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were English, there is actually a chance they didn't have to pay for the hearing aid at all. We have the NHS, Free Medical National Wide.

    33. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then their doctor is a idiot, because my dad and grand-dad, several years ago, both got the super-tiny in-the-ear hearing aids. They are small, they go deep in the ear canal, and have a little tag or wire that sticks out so you can pull them out.

    34. Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...raw American ignorance..."

      -1 for scatter-shot slamming of an innovative and entrepreneurial nation.

      - another 1 for failing to note that hearing aids are regulated by the FDA. That agency's renowned lassitude slows everything down and reduces competition, keeping prices high, and the cost involved in getting a product through its bureaucratic hurdles further contributes to the price bubble noted in the article.

  9. Looks like a great candidate for open sourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open source the technology.

    1. Re:Looks like a great candidate for open sourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how hard is it to put an audio amplifier on a chip with an EQ or some kind of simple bandpass filter anyways?
      Get that done, and there goes %99 of whatever is considered hi-tech about the device.

      The rest is just an earbud speaker, a battery, and a cheap microphone.

  10. This this by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    This.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  11. lot's of medical stuff is very over priced by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and it's a rip off on many levels.

    1. Re:lot's of medical stuff is very over priced by Adambomb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Simply put, but this is the actual answer to the question posed in the summary. The cost of health service and supplies are greatly inflated in the states compared to most of the modern world. I don't mean in the sense of "oh, in other countries it's paid for by taxes" sense or the "yeah but it is inferior quality care" sense but the actual amount that the provider gets paid for exactly the same supplies or service, regardless of who is paying it in the end. As an outsider looking in at America i really do not understand how the health provider industry in the states managed to pull it off.

      Americans are getting ripped off on health care hard, to the tune of 2 to 10 times the prices paid out to suppliers or service providers in other countries. I think given the amount of discussion on HOW or WHO will be paying for health care in past years, some groups had to be lobbying very hard to keep the topic of "Why is it so damned expensive here to begin with" out of the limelight.

      And they succeeded.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    2. Re:lot's of medical stuff is very over priced by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

      This is very true. Prescription drugs have risen dramatically. Drugs that sold for $1-$3 per pill now sell for up to $30. Drug companies are milking them until they fall off patent. Hearing aids are only by prescription, which means the doctors have a oligopoly on them and charge as much as they can. Their sales pitch, "What is being able to hear worth to you?"

      Just wait until you need cataract surgery or a new hip or a kidney. You might live, but you might not have anything left to live on..

    3. Re:lot's of medical stuff is very over priced by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0

      Well one explanation may be that Europe benefited from cheap medical research on human subjects in the 1930's and 1940's, and the cost savings are still being passed on until today... whereas the US didn't have such opportunity (well, maybe until much more recently..)

    4. Re:lot's of medical stuff is very over priced by tibit · · Score: 1

      That's right. I've done some calculations and it seems that if it weren't for FDA, as a pharmacist you could fly to Poland, first class, buy about $20k worth of non-subsidized drugs (non-narcotic) at a wholesaler, fly back to US, sell it, and still have about $5k of profit left in your pocket.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  12. And insurance doesn't cover them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was evaluated for a hearing aid a couple of years ago. I have nerve deafness from and infection when I was a kid. I need one but prioritize other things for the family. Insurance doesn't cover it.

    1. Re:And insurance doesn't cover them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While most insurance companies won't cover hearing aids, they will/should cover cochlear implants.

      Being profoundly deaf, I thought my last digital hearing aid which I paid $3k for 8 years ago was the shit. That opinion changed when I had a cochlear implant done with my worst ear. I couldn't tolerate listening through that worthless $3k POS once i had my cochlear implant turned on.

      Odd though though, my copay for this cochlear implant was only about $3k. If people are being asked to spend up to $8k for a hearing aid, I'd suggest they go see about getting a cochlear implant. At least, for that kind of money, they're getting something decent.

  13. Yeah, but who's buying? by ScentCone · · Score: 0

    I'd like to know just who is typically picking up the tab on some or most of those purchases. My guess is that those of us who pay insurance, and those of us who carry most of the burden for medicare/aid (in the US, mind you), are doing most of the buying for a lot of the people wearing them.

    $8k may indeed me a couple or three month's average household income, but that has very little to do with the financing mechanisms that are really in play. And this is a great example of why health care costs are so high. Everyone gets more than everyone put together can afford without going into debt. And, here we are.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems most people who have posted think insurance tends not to cover it.
      http://deafness.about.com/cs/hoth/a/hearingaidprice.htm
      You know the average cost of an *uncomplicated* birth in the US is about $7,000, medicaid or not.

    2. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by joocemann · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. Healthcare costs are where they are because the CAPITALISM factor is involved.

      With Single Payer Non-Profit, you can expect a 40-50% decrease in total cost to insure. Modeling after Canada's cost/person, a reduction from $1.5TR/250M-people to $1TR/300M-people is possible. That means the 250 million that pay for insurance are paying 1.5 TRILLION a year for shoddy, exclusion rich, insurance when the sum of all Americans, 300 million people, would be paying 1 TRILLION to cover everyone without any exclusions or b.s. trickery.

      I've talked to over 40 canadians about how they feel about their single-payer system and NOT A SINGLE ONE agreed with the US-paid-pundits that lie about how canadian's don't like their healthcare. Matter of fact, more than 25% of them laughed when I first asked, knowing that I had been exposed to the US-paid-pundits and required truthful answers.

    3. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by serbanp · · Score: 1

      As the original topic was hearing aids, which are not covered by most "health insurers" in the US, your rant is pointless. Yes, one has to pay out of pocket to get these and a couple of grands for them is an outrageous amount of money for such simple gadgets.

    4. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Not covered by my insurance. And at $5,000, the current loss of hearing wasn't worth the cost.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    5. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by bgat · · Score: 1

      My guess is that those of us who pay insurance, and those of us who carry most of the burden for medicare/aid (in the US, mind you), are doing most of the buying for a lot of the people wearing them.

      Good guess! In fact, it's spot on!

      But here's the secret: that's how _insurance_ works. You should look into it sometime.

      --
      b.g.
    6. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by billcopc · · Score: 2

      What we don't like are the long waiting lists for some surgeries, and in general the unreasonably long ER waiting times. Some affluent people do choose to go stateside and pay for their surgery in order to bypass the waiting list.

      One thing that does suck is we don't have enough doctors to go around. I'm not too sure what's up with that, but it is one of the main causes of those long ER delays. In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb... Family doctors are also very scarce. I perceive that as a government failure, they're not providing enough incentives for people to suffer through med school. More family doctors = more early prevention = less burden on the hospitals, but since when has any politician bothered with the long term outlook ?

      We still have group health insurance, but that's mostly to cover little extras like dental, eyecare and prescriptions, along with certain hospital upgrades - you get a shared room by default, or you can pay extra for a private or semi-private room. Sometimes this privatization works in the patient's favour, sometimes it results in massive industry wide insurance fraud and price fixing. Dental in particular is egregious, as dentists have been steadily hiking their prices to max out everyone's yearly coverage - or else the remainder is "wasted" :P. The last time I went for a cleaning and X-rays, two visits used up $2500 in insurance! Needless to say, I didn't go back to that scammer... but it is a growing trend as the only oversight comes from the dentists' association itself. Self-regulation ? Yeah right!

      Eyecare is much more competitive, partly because there are more eye doctors, and also because you can get many basic services in pharmacies and at Costco very cheaply. The specialists focus on edge cases and LASIK surgery, which is not covered by the government nor most private insurance plans. We don't have as much bait-and-switch crap as you cowboys with your $99 LASIK (and $1200 add-ons), I think the latest price was around $400-500 per eye for most cases - about the same as a mid-range pair of eyeglasses so quite affordable.

      Despite the criticisms, we're decently healthy and I think most people have good faith in the health system. It has its shortcomings, but the lack of up-front financial niggling means people are more likely to step up when someone is in need. We also don't end up suing each other over medical bills, and for the few cases where we do, it's usually handled by our auto insurance to cover lost wages and incidental costs - not the hospital visit! Less middlemen = more efficiency.

      There is no system that can please everyone, but from what I understand of the U.S. healthcare situation, even a shitty "Single Payer" system would be better than none at all. For one, it would take power away from the private insurance companies, who seem to boss patients and hospital staff around like their bitches. It would also eliminate the situation where your insurance suddenly drops you on a technicality (read: because you're unprofitable). This doesn't mean you can't still have private clinics and hospitals if you have the cash, but these would have to go well above and beyond the current standard of quality. That seems like a good thing: decent care for everyone, faster/luxurious care if you're filthy rich... either that, or they will fly to some foreign country and pay their doctors, as is already done EN-MASSE!

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a canadian.
      Healthcare here is... adequate.
      Certainly I know people who went to the US for specialised care. Happens.
      What I'm most annoyed at is a ridiculously incompetent doctor who cost my grandmother her life, sending her home to die of her heart condition after she went in complaining of problems.

      What I'm annoyed about there is how hard it is to hold doctors to account in canada, and the tiny compensation you get if you go through the aggressive process.
      That's one advantage of the canadian system. It keeps malpractice costs waaaay down compared to the US.

    8. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I lived in Canada for 8 years. I paid 100% full price for my medical coverage, which was $60/mo. That $60/mo meant EVERYTHING was free. Yes, everything, even elective surgery if I had a doctors recommendation. Yet oddly I still met many people up there who would say 'I wish we had privatized health care here like the states so I wouldn't have to wait 2 months to have surgery'. Then I would ask them if they'd prefer to be paying $200/mo AND have to pay 20% of the cost to have that surgery in one month. Then I'd bring up families I know here stateside that have to pay $1000+/mo to ensure their whole families and ask how they'd feel about that. After that the $175/mo family insurance ceiling and waiting an extra month for non-critical surgery sounds damn attractive.

      Sadly US news and propaganda is very prevalent in Canada and slowly Canadians are falling for the whole privatization is better bullsh*t. It makes me sick.

    9. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

          The aspect of capitalism that forces down prices is competition. There is no competition in health care. And there is very little capitalism.

          Where will Americans go when the Canadian system shows up here? Because they won't have an American health care system to run to.

    10. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by dcollins · · Score: 2

      "Thank you Barack, we already know your opinion."

      Notice that Barack worked to get exactly the opposite of a single-payer system instituted (namely, more forced payments to private insurance companies). Personally, I would not mind seeing his butt kicked up and down the street a few times for that. You're seeing a certain color as its opposite.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    11. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad would have loved for the chance to pay to have his hernia operation 17 weeks earlier, but he couldn't.

      Otherwise it's great that we can get drugs relatively cheaper up here. I mean, I know the companies are adjusting for our arbitrary price ceilings by raising prices in other markets like the US, but yeah.

    12. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Zirbert · · Score: 1

      One thing that does suck is we don't have enough doctors to go around. I'm not too sure what's up with that, but it is one of the main causes of those long ER delays.

      What's up with that is that there isn't enough money in practicing medicine in Canada. Most people smart and driven enough to become doctors are also smart and driven enough to make a lot more money doing something else, so they do something else. For those who are in it for reasons other than just money, which includes almost all of the doctors I know personally, there are too many other demands / temptations on their time. Some volunteer at specialized clinics (addiction treatment, etc.), and/or take frequent trips to third-world nations to spend a few weeks providing medical care to people who normally would receive none at all, etc.

      For those who can be swayed by money (and there's nothing wrong with that, everybody has bills to pay), there's an everpresent temptation to moonlight doing something else. My own doctor runs a "cosmetic and aesthetic medical clinic" on evenings and weekends. I don't know quite what that means, but I think it involves aromatherapy, which scares the daylights out of me. I have visions of going into his office complaining of severe abdominal pain and hearing him say, "Sounds like your appendix. Here, try smelling this."

      But I digress.

      A bigger problem for the money-minded doctors (I stress, again, there's nothing wrong with this - few among us would turn down a raise) is the possibility of going somewhere where the system allows doctors to make a lot more money. United States of America, I'm looking in your direction. Because of our publicly funded single-payer heathcare system, the government has a lot of control over how much money doctors make. When the gov. is looking to cut costs, they often hint that maybe doctors are making a little *too* much money, and that may be a good place to cut back on expenses. When they talk like that, some doctors put their resume out (or, more likely, return the foreign headhunter's call) rather than take the pay cut.

      Allowing capitalism and competition into the health-care market allows doctors to make a lot more money. There are downsides to that sort of system, yes, but there are upsides as well. One rarely hears of doctor shortages in places where doctors are paid based on market principles instead of socialist principles.

      In the U.S. (and lots of other places), people die because they can't afford medical care. Here in Canada, people who could afford medical care die on waiting lists because there aren't enough doctors. I'm glad I don't run a country, because I don't know of a perfect solution to this (and doubt there is one). I think Canada probably should maintain the essentials of its current system but allow privately-paid treatment as well (which is now explicitly illegal), to end the need for medical tourism. I think the U.S. should run screaming from Obama's incoming system, which combines the worst aspects of both. (Buy private medical insurance or be a criminal? Really?)

    13. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 4, Informative

      In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb...

      We have that in the US too. My medium sized city has a few of the best hospitals in country. Unless you're bleeding severely, giving birth, or having a heart attack you can count on a multi-hour wait at the emergency room. The only different thing from Canada is that patients get to walk out with fat bill. Something minor runs hundreds. Something major costs thousands.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    14. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by brit74 · · Score: 2

      Capitalism makes things cheaper. Blame something else.
      Per capita, the United States spends more money on healthcare than any other country in the world. The country paying the second most is Norway. The US spends 50% more money per capita than Norway. The US ranks 36th in longevity. The majority of countries which have longer longevity than the US have per-capita healthcare costs that are less than half of what the US pays.
      Per-capita healthcare costs by country: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm
      Longevity by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

      The idea that capitalism makes things cheaper is *generally* true, but it's certainly not true in all cases. There are plenty of reasons that things can be cheaper or more expensive. In general, people don't want to go cheap with their healthcare, for fear of the repercussions. This makes it a sellers market, even when spending half as much produces the same or almost the same results. And there are plenty of other reasons why US healthcare is so expensive.

    15. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism drives competition and it drives prices to a profitable, yet still competitive rate.

      What is happening here is clearly something other than capitalism. There is very likely a cartel, and this is the entire purpose of government: to protect people and break up such cartels.

      The fact that technology isn't improving, or even changing, is a big pointer in this direction.

    16. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT? Capitalism? Are you serious?

      Prices are sky high because everyone who has a job (you know the ones with money) have insurance or the ability to buy it fairly cheaply. That is law. If you have a business of 50 or more people you must offer them insurance.

      What is the consequence of that? It is simple. No one is paying the going rate of insurance or the actual procedures. In fact they *DO NOT CARE* what it costs. It costs them pretty much their deductible (I have seen as low as 5 dollars). Simple shit like cotton swabs cost 80 dollars. Why? Because the money is there. The insurance companies pay it. You paid 50 bucks for the whole procedure what do you care some wipe cost 80 bucks?

      You want affordable healthcare? Pay cash. Yep. You actually get better rates than what you get by going thru insurance. They dont just throw whatever bs at you and see what sticks. They only charge you for what they do. Then they actually give you a break. Why? They do not have to deal with the insurance companies. Or if your using medicade/care, the government.

      Unaffordable healthcare is a manipulation of the market already.

      In the past 15 years the whole healthcare system has been turned upside down. Instead of lots of non profits doing good healthcare we now have mega corps which on mega hospitals charging up the wazzoo for simple procedures. Because there is money to be made.

    17. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. (and lots of other places), people die because they can't afford medical care. Here in Canada, people who could afford medical care die on waiting lists because there aren't enough doctors. I'm glad I don't run a country, because I don't know of a perfect solution to this (and doubt there is one). I think Canada probably should maintain the essentials of its current system but allow privately-paid treatment as well (which is now explicitly illegal), to end the need for medical tourism. I think the U.S. should run screaming from Obama's incoming system, which combines the worst aspects of both. (Buy private medical insurance or be a criminal? Really?)

      There is also a significant shortage of primary care doctors in much of the USA as well. I recall seeing a statistic a few years back that one of the poor areas of San Francisco, with a population of about 70,000 was served by a total of two or three doctors at a single clinic. Peterborough Ontario at the time (2005 or so?) was one of Ontario's most medically undeserved communities, with a population of about 70,000, and hundreds (thousands?) of people without a primary care physician as there were only a couple dozen in town.

      Both countries suffer from the artificial control of the supply of med students - largely set by the medical societies, in addition to the relatively low pay that primary care physicians (the "family doctor") get on either side of the boarder, particularly when compared to specialists of which in some fields I think there is a bit of a glut. Double or triple the number of spots in med school (to say the level per capita they were producing in the 1950s) and some of these issues might be lessened.

    18. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I can't speak to the surgery wait, but in the U.S. we get a 4-6 hour ER wait and a big bill.

    19. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since you asked I'll tell you who is paying I'll answer your question.

      My elderly, financially strapped mother needs a pair of hearing aids so she can maintain contact with the world around her - they most certainly are NOT covered by medicare, medicaid, medigap, or other insurance - the several K dollars they cost are paid for by her children so she can communicate with us.

      As an aside one of her children (me) spent a career in the elecronics and semiconductor manufacturing industry and recognizes the unconscionable amount of profit being gouged from those who need hearing aids.

    20. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is the economic aspect of the enforcement of rights (or more simply but less accurately, the existence of freedom). How you can confuse the illegality of unlicensed medical care as freedom is beyond understanding. Tax laws and wage restrictions also drive up healthcare prices, and neither of those is a part of freedom or capitalism.

      You clearly have no idea what capitalism is, nor what it implies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Zirbert · · Score: 1

      There is also a significant shortage of primary care doctors in much of the USA as well. I recall seeing a statistic a few years back that one of the poor areas of San Francisco, with a population of about 70,000 was served by a total of two or three doctors at a single clinic.

      That's a function of the same phenomenon. There isn't enough money in practicing medicine in poor areas, or in places like Canada where artificial price controls keep the price of medical care artificially low. You'll get a few altruistic diehards, but the majority of doctors, like the rest of us, will follow the money.

      Both countries suffer from the artificial control of the supply of med students - largely set by the medical societies, in addition to the relatively low pay that primary care physicians (the "family doctor") get on either side of the boarder, particularly when compared to specialists of which in some fields I think there is a bit of a glut. Double or triple the number of spots in med school (to say the level per capita they were producing in the 1950s) and some of these issues might be lessened.

      This is an interesting idea, and one that hadn't occurred to me. I don't know anything about med school admissions. If I had mod points today, there'd be an Insightful or Informative coming your way.

      I agree, open med school admissions up, and let the market sort this problem out. That raises another question in the short term of where we get the doctors to teach all these new doctors (you can't be in your office treating patients and in the classroom teaching at the same time), but that's relatively minor. And if we wind up with a bit of a glut of doctors a decade later, well, that's a bit of a nice problem to have.

      Canada has another problem, although a somewhat understandable one: we don't recognize many foreign medical credentials. I've read too many articles about people who were surgeons in their home country who had to get out when the place fell apart, and are now driving cabs in Canada because their medical credentials aren't recognized here, and won't be until they repeat their training in a Canadian program.

      I'm sure that sometimes that's justified, but I think a lot of it is probably protectionism to benefit Canadian medical schools. I could be completely wrong about this, but I assume there's some medical equivalent of the legal profession's bar exam. I think immigrant doctors should just be allowed to "challenge the test", and take whatever exams / tests (I would certainly expect some sort of practical component) are administered to Canadian doctors. If they pass, then they can practice here. If they don't, they can't. That should weed out the quacks and aromatherapists, and let us put the surgeons to proper work.

      Just to come back on topic about hearing aids: make them like eyeglasses, where my optometrist will give me a written copy of my prescription, which I can then take to any number of Lenscrafter-type places, who compete on price, to actually get that prescription filled. Once you have the specs for your optimized hearing aid, it should be trivial to order the unit online. Sorry to keep saying it, but it keeps being true: if it's allowed to, the market can sort this problem out.

    22. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by scottbomb · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. Obamacare is only the 1st step toward single-payer, which is what he and all the other socialists on Capitol Hill want. Here it is, in his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

    23. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you also do not get to just walk in to get a surgery here in the USA. The insurance company has to agree and decide where it will be who will do it and approve it....

      It can still take months to get approved. This is part of why lots of people are angry down here.

    24. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      And costs at Wal-Mart are ridiculously high because the CAPITALISM factor is involved, right?

      Hint: More than half of US health care expenditures already come from governments (state and Federal). Federal tax law means that it is cheaper for companies to pay for employees' insurance than to do anything else, and that insulates those price negotiations -- and the associated impact on expenditures -- from consumer feedback. Employees tend to think that they have no input into their insurance options, and negligible impact on the costs, so they might as well milk their insurance for all it is worth.

    25. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know why, but I get the feeling if you talk to 40 Canadians about politics/healthcare you're probably the kind of person to hang around like minded individuals. Anyone who strikes up that many idle conversations about politics is either bias or paid to ask them.
      I lived in Canadia and some of the "US-paid-pundits" stories are true, some are bull.

    26. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      No, Obamacare is a complete sellout that ensures a single-payer system will never happen.

      Note that the linked video has him saying opposite things to different groups of people. (AMA vs. AFL-CIO). So yes, he's a liar. The fact that he sold out any chance at a single-payer system is unforgivable. Just like the rest of his all-appeasement-all-the-time domestic policies.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    27. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      In the USA, average people are much more exposed to the financial costs of their individual medical procedures (even with insurance, there are deductibles, HSA's, HRA's etc etc) than any other developed nation. The notion of "medical bankruptcy" is preposterous anywhere else, and it is common in the USA.

      And yet, US health care costs are much, much, higher for little or no better quality.

      And some people say that the reason for this is that average American people aren't taking on enough financial risk with their health care and they should take on more.

      Does the empirical evidence support such a conclusion?

    28. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But...but...but...free markets, no gubbinment interference with my Medicare and all. USA! We're #1! 9/11 (nothing to do with this but it always gets worked in there somewhere). Seriously, a lot of Americans are concerned with the notion that a few pennies of their tax money might possibly go to pay for someone else's health care who they don't like or that their taxes might go up even though their health insurance bill would go down by more than that-they can't be bothered to pay any attention to actually analyze their situation. Don't even ask them to get their heads around the notion that these anti health care people might be lying let alone that they might be paid by people who want to keep overcharging them.

    29. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      The difference between Canadian and US is two very different things. In Canada the FEDERAL government has near to 0 involvement in your healthcare unless you're either a native, live in a very remote place(aka resolute), or you're in the military. Each province is responsible for the healthcare in their province. The most that the feds get involved is ensuring that each province has the same basic level of care.

      Now if you live in Quebec, you'll probably get more than someone in Ontario. That reason is simple, Quebec gets an ass load of bribe money to stay in the country, thus can spend an ass load more on people for various things. If you live in Alberta you'll probably see the same, because it's a very rich have province with lots of oil. Ontario up until a few years ago the same thing, now you're seeing a decrease in the level of non-basic care because all the money went poof when the manufacturing sector went away.

      Now in the rare event that a province can't afford the care, Newfoundland for example you get equalization payments specific to healthcare. We like our healthcare in Canada, in general. But we sure the hell don't don't do single-payer system here. It's group, at the provincial level. I'll tell you this, my American friends you are fucking dense as a brick if you think Obamacare is a good idea. No one at the federal level should ever determine the level of care. The state or province must always determine it, as they're the best suited to know where and what should be built where.

      After all...should some nameless bureaucrat decide a hospital gets built? Or should the person in your state? And the same goes for critical care centres and medical treatment. You *should* be up in arms. Remember the Canadian healthcare act at the federal level can fit on 1 sheet of paper.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    30. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by WoTG · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear here, $60/mo sounds a lot like the MSP "Premium" we pay in BC. That's only a small fraction of the cost of health care in Canada. A large percentage of our income taxes go to pay for health care too. We're still way cheaper overall than the US, but we're not at a $60/mo level. Plus, when's the last time a major drug or medical technique was developed in Canada? We should thank the American's for footing the bill for the R&D that we all get to piggy-back off-of.

    31. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by xero314 · · Score: 1

      In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb...

      The american system does nothing to alleviate this specific issue. We have just as long of emergency wait times, depending on the severity of the illness (a child with a head injury can get in pretty quickly). But in our case, not only do we have long wait lines, we end up with a multi thousand dollar bill when we leave (which may or may not be covered by insurance).

    32. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by syousef · · Score: 1

      I think Canada probably should maintain the essentials of its current system but allow privately-paid treatment as well (which is now explicitly illegal), to end the need for medical tourism. I think the U.S. should run screaming from Obama's incoming system, which combines the worst aspects of both. (Buy private medical insurance or be a criminal? Really?)

      That's how it works in Australia. The public medical system is a mess. For a little while you could get good private care if you paid. Now that's becoming a mess too - the only difference is you end up spending hundreds for every bit of blood work and x-ray they do when they admit you to the ER and you get bills for weeks or months after the visit. Unfortunately I know this first hand.

      The reason medical professionals are scarce has as much to do with how medical associations and accreditation is run as the lack of incentive to become a doctor.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    33. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      My wife is getting hearing aids and insurance is NOT covering it. :(

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    34. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      What leads to not enough doctors is two fold:

      1. Doctors don't tend to get 'rich' like in the old days (cost of malpractice insurance being a key factor), and that's ignoring the hours most doctors have to put in (cosmetic surgeons working the least btw). If someone works 60 or 80 hour weeks one expects to come home with a nice reward for it (IT has this issue as well).

      2. The cost and time it takes to go to medical school. It's very very easy to have huge loan debts in the US (& Canada among others) to get your medical degree (which also factors into number one). This includes the long 1 or 2 years new doctors spend as low paid interns.

      Solve these two things you get more doctors. Personally I'd like to see a better path for nurses to become doctors since we pump out nurses like crazy (and their are plenty of jobs for nurses). Nursing training could be layered to add in the things required for an ER style doctor in layers. In a sense we see this already with RN's filling in on doctor's visits and in clinics, but I'd like to see a clear path from the training of the most basic nursing positions to the physician. It would let someone start out in the healthcare field and given say... ten years, advanced from an orderly to the stage of an RN. In 20 years they could be full fledged physicians.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    35. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by swalve · · Score: 1

      The US healthcare system is not capitalism. It is a marketplace that has been captured by rent-seeking insurance companies who probably started out trying to do good, but have ended up being leeches. They've run up the price of medical care up so high that nobody (with any money) would dare not purchase their protection.

    36. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Canada has another problem, although a somewhat understandable one: we don't recognize many foreign medical credentials. I've read too many articles about people who were surgeons in their home country who had to get out when the place fell apart, and are now driving cabs in Canada because their medical credentials aren't recognized here, and won't be until they repeat their training in a Canadian program.

      It is an issue in the US as well - in both the US and Canada foreign trained doctors (including those from English speaking high-standards places like the UK and Australia) need to do an internship at a local hospital just like graduates of local med-schools do - regardless of their experience or qualifications (I think they also have to sit for some soft of qualifying exam in order to be eligible for that). Not only doe this add a lot of time to the process - spots for internships for these candidates are in short supply - also artificially in my estimation.

      In Ontario recently, the provincial Liberals have suggested that they would provide incentives for new immigrants to be hired by employers - and I think much of the proposal is focused on this type of foreign credential issue. Of course the other parties are jumping all over that and characterizing it as a nefarious plan to steal the jobs of "Canadians" and give them to "Foreigners". I am disgusted by the parties, and the media, constantly fear mongering rather than speaking to the real issues surrounding anything in the public sphere.

    37. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by tepples · · Score: 1

      President Obama tried other-than-appeasement. Republicans filibustered any attempt at other-than-appeasement.

    38. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Agreed 100%. I'm the same kind of U.S. city and my pregnant wife sat for 2+ hours in the ER waiting room, with a bleeding that left a pool of blood on the floor. The wheelchair she sat on was obviously a biohazard at that point :) Then she had an ultrasound done by an intern who I had to politely advise that she was looking at the bladder. That's at a major academic hospital, mind you. I could do a freaking ob-gyn ultrasound better than her -- admittedly, that's because we would wait for so long in for ob-gyn ultrasounds that I got plenty of time to play with the equipment -- nothing like running a doppler on your brachial artery to pass the time. Eventually you can't but get a hold of it and start to recognize anatomical features. An arm is seemingly more complex than female reproductive organs (to me at least). Every time I'd be told "you're not supposed to touch that". And every time I'd politely answer that "you're not supposed to keep us waiting for 45 minutes either".

      In the end, everything was fine - some women bleed while pregnant, nobody knows why (so much for advanced medicine). They should have done an ultrasound, found a viable fetus, and sent us home in 15 minutes tops. I wouldn't count on them catching low blood pressure in time anyway, as my wife arrested in the very same ER, when they restarted her and put a central catheter in, the BP was around 45. That was sepsis, by the way. She walked to the ER in the afternoon, and they managed to almost let her die a couple hours later.

      I think that if any one of us has to go to the ER again, we'll shoot ourselves first. That gets their attention, usually

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    39. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the states and Health Insurance sucks big time here. To me every problem that exists with health insurance here and in Canada one way or another if you look hard enough it will be caused by money (read greed). I would imagine that in Canada most Drs are not too keen on National Health Insurance when they see the same type of Drs in the USA make more money. So I would imagine perhaps a lot of Drs come to the US. But the real problem in Canada and the US is GREED of Drs. I would imagine that the long lines in Canada are either purposely created by your Drs or if their is a shortage of Drs it is artificially created by restricting supply by having few Medical schools. Easy to solve Dr shortage simply create more Medical Schools. I mean how long would it take to create a College of Medicine after high school to become an MD similar to a school of Engineering. Perhaps 5 - 6 years in total. Easy to solve. I would Imagine that Drs in Canada are lobbying to restrict the number of Drs in their profession and are doing all they can to screw National Health Insurance. The problem in the US is surely lack of ethics of the populace in general. I mean if the Drs are greedy they must have come from somewhere in US society which that the problem is US. I hate the US middle class they just believe in the mantra "I am me and fsck you". Sickening.

    40. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      My guess is that those of us who pay insurance, and those of us who carry most of the burden for medicare/aid (in the US, mind you), are doing most of the buying for a lot of the people wearing them.

      You would be wrong. Most health insurance does not cover hearing aids.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    41. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I've talked to over 40 canadians about how they feel about their single-payer system and NOT A SINGLE ONE agreed with the US-paid-pundits that lie about how canadian's don't like their healthcare. Matter of fact, more than 25% of them laughed when I first asked, knowing that I had been exposed to the US-paid-pundits and required truthful answers.

      I think Canadians are trained from birth to love their health care. One of those "if you repeat it often enough it must be true" type of things. If they love it so much, how come my Canadian friends bitch and bitch about it all the time?

      One friend had (I shit you not) a broken toe, but refused to seek medical attention because it would have meant a 7 hour wait in the ER just to see someone and she didn't want to take a day off of work. Another's kid had a huge bump on his head, and also refused to seek medical attention for the same reason. Another one is in a huge amount of pain waiting for some type of surgery on his back but is on a waiting list because it's not "urgent". Yet all of them love them their Canadian "free" health care. I can't figure out why. I really really can't figure out why.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    42. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      capitalism is a strange game played by the rich and greedy;
      it is the game of trying to earn money AT ANY WAY POSSIBLE that could be lowering prices, offering a better product OR just buying out everyone else and raising prices, bribing gov, abusing workers, finding flaws in the tax code, paying pennys a day to a 3rd wold country worker,and lets not forget lieing; cheating; stealing.

      --
      warning pointless sig
    43. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by jfmiller · · Score: 1

      UC Davis Med Center in Sacramento, CA: typical wait time 9-14 hours. During one exceptionally hot week in July of '07 when I worked there at least one person waited 26 hours to have a dislocated shoulder looked at. It's not better here, it's much, much worse.

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    44. Re:Yeah, but who's buying? by klkblake · · Score: 1

      No. America's health system is not capitalist. I don't even have words for what it is. I live in Australia, and while the government does offer health insurance, pretty much everyone is on private health insurance because (shock, horror) capitalism actually works. The health care is great, and private health insurance is not much more expensive than the government option. The American system is a clusterfuck of regulatory capture and perverse incentives. It's a miracle that monstrosity ever worked.

      --
      The sum of the intelligence of the world is constant. The population is, of course, growing.
  14. OMG, A BUBBLE!!! by gtirloni · · Score: 1

    I think 10 years is a fairly OK period for the price of anything to double. If there have been advances in technology, more so.

    --
    none
    1. Re:OMG, A BUBBLE!!! by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet every similar device that isn't a hearing aid has come way down in price in that same time frame. The difference is that the FDA won't butt out of hearing aids.

    2. Re:OMG, A BUBBLE!!! by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      Everyone rags on the FDA when there is some process or equipment that they personally want. But if some sub-par unregulated hearing aid destroyed the remaining hearing in their ears or the ears of someone they care about hell would be raised over the lack of oversight.

      Medical issues and equipment tend to be very permanent. Some more transparency would be nice, but anyone who thinks the FDA does more harm than good is nuts. For that matter, anyone that thinks the FDA does enough harm to even consider compromising the amount of good it does is probably nuts.

    3. Re:OMG, A BUBBLE!!! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Of course they'll rant. Government is only supposed to protect others from screwing them over, not the other way around.

    4. Re:OMG, A BUBBLE!!! by sjames · · Score: 1

      If we didn't have a zillion completely unregulated amplifiers feeding directly into ears (many with equalizers and such), I could see it. In the end, that's what we're talking about, a miniaturized iPod with a microphone and no storage space (the DSP needed for MP3 decoding is remarkably similar to what's needed for a hearing aid).

      I wouldn't rag on the FDA so much if it would actually perform risk/benefit analysis on it's own actions. However, for all the costs it pushes into the system, we still end up with a long list of deadly drugs, not to mention the ones that other than costing more, not working as well, and having worse side effects are leaps and bounds above the older ones they replace.

      In this particular case, we're not talking about devices costing double or triple what they would otherwise, they're one to two orders of magnitude more expensive. To put that in perspective, Imagine you go grocery shopping for the week and it comes to $5000 because of the of new USDA regulations.

      Then, there's the matter of the many people who end up with no healthcare at all because because they can't afford it.

    5. Re:OMG, A BUBBLE!!! by afidel · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing, that's 7% per year which is definitely above inflation but not terribly so.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  15. Really? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

    A story about hearing aids that links to the glorified blog of a company that makes...hearing aids?

    I'm about ready to join the throng of sardonic malcontents who greet every new story with "This is what we get now that Taco's gone?"

    1. Re:Really? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You RTFA? You must be new here.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  16. No surprises for those paying attention by fish+waffle · · Score: 1

    It's just supply and demand. About 1/3 of the people I see on my daily commute have headphones on, and most of them are almost certainly too loud. This has been going on since the walkman appeared in the mid/late 80's, so those early adopters are now leading the pack in early adoption of hearing aids.

  17. Of course they're overpriced. by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wear hearing aids in both ears, as a souvenir of my time in the Navy back in '72. If my hearing loss weren't service connected I'd have had to buy my own, and there's no way I could possibly have afforded them. As it is, I got them from the VA (The biggest buyer of hearing aids in the USA.) for free. Hearing aids are overpriced because it's a seller's market and health insurance companies are willing to shell out whatever the manufacturer asks. And, of course, if your insurance doesn't cover them, you're stuck with two unpleasant choices: either you pay full retail price or you do without.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wear hearing aids in both ears, as a souvenir of my time in the Navy back in '72. If my hearing loss weren't service connected I'd have had to buy my own, and there's no way I could possibly have afforded them. As it is, I got them from the VA (The biggest buyer of hearing aids in the USA.) for free. Hearing aids are overpriced because it's a seller's market and health insurance companies are willing to shell out whatever the manufacturer asks. And, of course, if your insurance doesn't cover them, you're stuck with two unpleasant choices: either you pay full retail price or you do without.

      The technical term is price gouging.

    2. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Informative

      'Full Retail Price' in the medical world is often less than you would imagine. Hospitals routinely offer a 30% or better discount for paying in cash. Many medical establishments are likely the same way, for the same reason- dealing with insurance companies, medicare, or the VA requires a great deal of administrative overhead.

      Yes, I've asked a few times. The next few times you find yourself in the business office of a medical establishment, ask them what the cash discount is. You might be surprised at what the typical response is.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's like this for everything. We had a baby 1.5 years ago. He wouldn't breastfeed so my wife rented a hospital grade pump to do the hard work.

      Our insurance didn't cover it 100% because it wasn't "medically necessary" (they'd rather you use formula) and it would have been around $125/month out of pocket for us.

      We told the medical equipment company we didn't have insurance and suddenly the price was just under $60/month. What does that mean? They overcharge the insurance companies by at least 3x what their actual costs are because they can.

      Our insurance companies aren't exactly the problem. It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.

    4. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by subreality · · Score: 0

      And, of course, if your insurance doesn't cover them, you're stuck with two unpleasant choices: either you pay full retail price or you do without.

      ... Kind of like everything in medicine. The prices are jacked up to the point where you can't afford it, but the insurance companies can because they have a huge discount. You can't afford to not have insurance.

      Obamacare is going to help a lot, but it still doesn't get these scum-sucking market-manipulating sons of bitches out of the way, so expect everything to still be more difficult and expensive in the US than anywhere else in the first world.

    5. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're robbing us all blind.

      And, apparently, robbing some of us deaf.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    6. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I've asked a few times. The next few times you find yourself in the business office of a medical establishment, ask them what the cash discount is. You might be surprised at what the typical response is.

      30% Big whoop! .. given that the markup is in excess of 4000%.

      The problem is 2 fold, 1) companies trying to recoup the full cost of development in the first 5 years of a patent and 2) there is no competitive market as most are available only through certified dealers who each have exclusive markets.

    7. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      $5,000. I asked.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    8. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      It makes you wonder ... If insurance companies reason out "rates" that are more favorable because they can "buy in bulk,' then they need better price negotiators because this shit is so commonplace as to be borderline criminal? My cousin works for an orthopedic company fitting/delivery prosthetics. They have a special "diabetic" walking shoe that he gave me that they charge.. wait for it.. $250 for to the insurance companies. It's no more complicated than the pair of Asics I wear on a regular basis, not really that much lighter, and certainly no more fashionable than the slew of "high end" sneakers I have in my closet. Makes me wonder...

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    9. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So close but so far....

      Those "prices" they charge insurance are a scam. Those prices are there so that you can get gouged your X percent that you are supposed to cover under your insurance plan, while the insurance company supposedly pays 100-X percent. What you don't see is the kickback the insurance company then gets from the company.

    10. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both the insurers and billers are to blame. I'm not entirely sure who started it, but I suspect it was the latter, which noticed that since the patient/consumer/customer isn't directly footing the bill they can charge almost whatever they like. Insurance companies caught on and started negotiating that they'd pay a certain percentage of the full price. That panned out exactly like one would expect, so now prices are massively inflated. Even if you're paying for something out of pocket it helps to bill your insurance company and reimburse their costs so you get their rate, or just talk to the provider and get them to charge you the real price.

    11. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Threni · · Score: 1

      > We had a baby 1.5 years ago. He wouldn't breastfeed so my wife rented a hospital grade pump to do
      > the hard work.

      Why not use formula. That's what my child is getting. Am I doing something wrong? It's just for a year; cheap and easy and it's not for long that they just get formula; you can give them mashed up rice/veg, water etc after a very few months.

    12. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I had the same experience as a contractor during dot com boom. I was easily making six figures so decided my LLC (which only had one employee -- me) didn't need insurance, would just pay cash. I was continually surprised about how cheap medical, dermitalogical, and dental services were if you pay cash. Easily 1/3 the price as you said. The whole medical insurance thing appears to be corrupt. And I'm *sure* it's going to be squeaky clean when the government takes it over...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Numerous studies show breast milk is better. Yeah, there's always problems with studies; but breast milk is "how it's supposed to work" so it seems logical to not use a substitute unless absolutely necessary.

    14. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they do.

      I've seen the bill when I go in to get new glasses every year on my insurance plan. The advertised price for a full workup for people without insurance is generally somewhere between $50-$75 around these parts. For five years, I never once saw an opto charge my insurance company any less than $150.

      These people are fucking my insurance company, who in turn fuck my non-profit/NGO employers. There are old grandmothers donating $20 a month to the organization so I can do medical work overseas and where is that money going?

      For the last two years, I've just pay for my own $50 eye exam and submitting my receipt for reimbursement.

      I would have more to say about the American medical/insurance system, but I don't practice clinical medicine in the US for exactly this reason.

    15. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire system is the problem. The law allows this dual pricing model.

      The system is fucked beyond belief. Top to bottom. Inside and out. Period.

    16. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.

      Call it what you will, but it makes perfect economic sense. Overcharging and lack of transparency in pricing of goods and services is the inevitable result of any payment arrangement in which you pay someone else to pay the bill for you; especially when you cannot easily see what the price would otherwise be if you bought directly from the seller in the open marketplace. For a full explanation of the "Third Party Payer Problem" as it relates to healthcare, I recommend the following article. Third party pay isn't the only thing wrong with health care in the United States but it is a large part of it and perhaps the largest single part.

    17. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by johnmorganjr · · Score: 0

      Mine are courtesy of the V.A. from a roadside bomb Iraq 2005. I love them because I can turn OFF as well, for example screaming brats in the store, etc. I have looked them up and my hearing aids are close to 8,000.00 so I feel for yall that have to shell out of pocket for your aids and batteries.

    18. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Setting aside that we're getting off topic since hearing aids aren't covered by a lot of insurance companies, insurance companies want prices to be high (since their contracts get them out of paying full price). They want you to be scared of the ER bogeyman. Your trip to the emergency room could cost you TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS (oooOOOoooo). Buy our insurance now! For only $10k/yr, we'll pay half your ER trip, (after the first $5k deductible and subject to your unconscious body being taken by in-network ambulance drivers to an in-network hospital where you are seen by in-network doctors and treated with in-network drugs). Whatta deal!

      If insurance companies wanted to make medicine cheap, they could invest in drug development, invest in new treatments for expensive diseases, invest in more hospitals, and so on.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    19. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      As it is, I got them from the VA (The biggest buyer of hearing aids in the USA.) at taxpayer expense

      Fixed that for you. But, since you are a veteran, I as a taxpayer am more than happy to help pay for your medical expenses. You did your part, I'll do mine, just please let's not take one another for granted. Thanks.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    20. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they overcharge insurance companies because the insurance companies have contract with them that says the insurer pays 60% of the normal rate. Obviously the end result of that is the 'normal rate' goes up 67% and the uninsured get screwed. You're quite lucky they gave you a "cash discount", I'm sure they'd be in deep shit if all the insurers they contract with found out.

    21. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by nbetcher · · Score: 1

      Actually, they overcharge because of the formula that the insurance companies use to determine the "contract price." If the price is higher - that they bill the insurance - the amount they receive in reimbursement will be closer to what they deserve.

      Since I work in pharmacy and have also worked for a few pharmacy benefit managers, I will provide an example of how they bill:
      U&C (Usual and customary): $100
      Ingredient cost: $50
      Gross amount due: $50

      Based on the numbers submitted, the insurance will now reimburse the provider $58. Had the provider billed for less, they would receive (a lot) less in reimbursement. There are upper limits to all drugs/procedures/devices/etc, but larger issues come into play, like what "network" the provider is in (it's not just "in" or "out" of network for the provider - they get reimbursed LESS the smaller the company is). Walgreens, for example, recently just refused to continue taking pharmacy insurance provided by Express Scripts because Express scripts refused to pay Walgreens the amount that was DEMANDED. Walgreens ALREADY gets paid at LEAST 10% more than any other pharmacy. (Express Scripts provides (at least) 20% of the nations pharmacy benefits.)

      The point being, the insurance companies have it backwards, but larger companies should not be able to abuse their power to leverage higher reimbursement rates. If something costs $100, then it costs $100 no matter where you go - the reimbursement should remain the same. (Yes, I know you can buy in bulk when you're a larger company, but that tends to squash small to mid-size businesses.)

    22. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      If she breast fed for over a couple of months, you'd have been better off buying a pump and reselling it in the end.

    23. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Buy a freakin' breast pump of the shelf. It's ~$200 for a really nice one, $50 for the hand pumps. The only difference between 'hospital grade' and 'consumer grade' is that consumer grade lasts for about 2-3 babies and the pump mechanism is not separated so if multiple people use it, diseases could spread.

      I am also wondering how much a hearing aid would cost if you just built it yourself. I mean, the electronics shouldn't be that hard (at the very basic, a miniature microphone, op-amp, battery and a miniature speaker would give you an 80s-style hearing aid) even if you want a microprocessor, you can always mimic a bluetooth headset and make it a tad bigger - BT headsets are what, $20 these days so you should be able to build it even in small numbers for under $500. Maybe it wouldn't be FDA approved but neither are those TV/Church crap hearing aids they sell to old people and can be found in the $5 bin at your average department store.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    24. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, what it means is that the price they quote is where you negotiate from. If you've ever looked closely at your bills for medical services, you'll likely notice that the insurance company typically only allows payments of a certain amount and then there's the typical copayment, but when you add the numbers together they rarely if ever come out to the correct amount.

      The main reason being that insurance companies typically get a discount for providing patients. Sort of like how you get money off if you agree to sign a contract to do regular business with somebody. That stream of income has value to it.

    25. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

      We told the medical equipment company we didn't have insurance and suddenly the price was just under $60/month. What does that mean? They overcharge the insurance companies by at least 3x what their actual costs are because they can.

      When you buy a car, or a home, if you sign up for the "finance plan", you are amortizing the cost because you don't have the money to pay outright.
      The overhead of the insurance cost is the same thing.

      People who can afford to pay should pay, and not pay interest in the form of an insurance scheme. The total cost of health care is high specifically because we are sharing the burden with and of our fellow delinquent and deadbeat citizens with many medical problems.

    26. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mistaken on how this works. Their list price is not what insurance companies pay; they negotiate for their own prices. Take a look at any insurance-paid medical bill. The medical provider sends a bill with the list price of the medical services. The insurance company first applies a discount to the bill based on negotiated in-network prices. Then from that amount they start applying your benefits and deductible. I had a hospital bill where the insurance company basically cut the amount in half before they started applying my benefits to it. This is why you got a different price when you indicated you didn't have insurance. You basically negotiated your own price like the insurance companies do.

      They may overcharge insurance companies, but insurance companies work very hard to be sure they don't overpay.

    27. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind how much overhead is associated in dealing with insurance companies. Each company typically has their own forms and procedures... and let's not forget the push from ICD9 to ICD11 that means lots of new training and other such nonsense. When you're dealing with insurance companies, the prices you get charged are essentially set in stone. There are iron clad, and generally fairly secretive, contracts between service providers and the insurance companies.

      I went through the initial motions to find a GP at UCSF a few years back. Turns out there's a waiting list of at least three months. I decided to go the no-insurance "concierge" doctor route. If you go into a typical doctor's office (at least in my experience) you'll often see a lot of admin staff. Here, it's an office full of doctors with one office manager type. No need to employ a whole host of support staff to put up with ridiculous insurance requirements. As an added bonus I can typically make same-day appointments, or same-week if I'm looking for a specific doctor at the practice. Because there's no contractual obligation to charge a fixed price, yeah, some people will end up getting charged less.

      In a similar vein, the pharmacist I patronize was showing me some receipts (names redacted, of course). One example was a month's supply of /something/ for over $900. The insurance company paid him cost + $3. Three whole dollars to cover all of his dealings with the insurance company. And, yeah, dealing with them is a pain. I've watched him call and haggle with the insurance company because they switched "fulfillment providers" for prescription coverage and wanted him to upgrade a bunch of proprietary software in order to authorize some scripts. Other times it's just a matter of the insurance company cocking up and demanded that the customer be charged an excessive amount. But, yeah, 0.3% "profit" for having to order and warehouse the drugs, deal with collecting payment from the customers, then collecting payment from the insurance companies, dealing with the occasional retroactive claim denial, deal with the not so occasional insurance company screwups, debuging their software(!!!)... yeah that's a great way to get rich. Most of the time if he's on the phone, it's because he's dealing with some insurance company bullshit. OTOH if I go in there and pay cash for something, the buck stops here. I fork over the cash, I get the drugs. No fuss, no muss, *far* less overhead. When I've had to pick up (expensive) meds for a friend who had no insurance, you bet your sweet bippy he was willing to negotiate with me (and I ended up with stuff below cost in some cases).

      In addition to the hassle that the company would have likely had to go through to get a non-necessary device approved, I can only imagine the extra hoops a durable equipment company would have to go through to upon return of the pump. So yeah, when you're bound by contracts with companies that make you jump through lots of tedious hoops at minimal cost I can only imagine that you'd be less likely or able to offer any sort of discount.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    28. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      What the devil is a hospital grade breast pump? Target sells a fairly quiet dual breast pump for under $100. Although some retail pumps are pretty cheaply made and fail after a half year of steady use, it's still a better deal.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not so...I have a non service-connected disability and I get my hA through the VA. Also get a phonak fm transmitter system to use for free(~$1800).
      My wife got bilateral cochlear implants a bout 3 years ago. She had private insurance....their cost=$300,000. Our cost was about $9000.
      btw...the CIs are sooo much better than her HAs were. She has AB (advanced Bionics)

    30. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked on systems for an "insurance company"....

      It works like this:
      -they charge the insurance company $125
      -Insurance company looks up the cost in their database
      -Insurance company offers $50
      -Medical provider accepts

      You probably paid more than an insurance company would have (but probably not a lot more).

    31. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understand that the insurance company doesn't pay 100% of the bill either. They tell the provider they are paying 30-50% of the bill, so of course the bill is tripled.

      Many doctors will not take Medicare/Medicaid because the reimbursement rate is like 20%. So of course the fees go up for everyone so they get something like 50% of what their real costs are. Then they are forced to cost-shift over to the people that aren't on a government plan.

      The only way to change this is 100% reimbursement from a single payer plan. Unfortunately, the US government has proven (through Obama's plan) they can't afford to do that. We are going to be seeing 80% taxes on middle-class people or we are going to have to start cutting off care for people. The US spends nearly all (like 90%) of health care spending on the last year of life. Nobody else does this. That has to change and then we can afford health care for all. Of course, it will be a big change in how older people are treated, but they are just told to toddle off and die everywhere else, so why can't we start doing that as well?

    32. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pricey
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Avent_isis_breast_pump.jpg

    33. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just milking it....

    34. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by astar · · Score: 1

      Maybe pay or do without are the only options.. But I keep thinking DIY. The general high cost is strongly connected to the need to have a prescription? This is at least True for CPAP machines. Also, most of the cost of a hearing aide, IMO, is in the IP, like the software.

      HeHe. Consider a blood glucose tester. As for diabetics... Now the device is basically free, because of the razor/razor blade marketing principle. And they have nice internal records of the readings. Now consider the one-touch brand. There is in fact now some FOSS software to get the data and manipulate it. But the proprietary cable costs $40.

      Hey, if you want to go for a DIY hearing aid system, drop me a line. I figure if we do not need to miniturize the electronics, then some fpeg or lesser goodie is the core element. HeHe. We can actually do better if we get it so cheap as to be almost a disposeable. Figure the standard tech is challenging in a noisy room. Just give the person you are talking to a wireless fm microphone? Cost for the gizmo could be $5? You have some cpu power on your hip. It bluetooths to your earpiece, which is NOT a medical device. Random thoughts.

    35. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our insurance companies aren't exactly the problem. It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.

      It's the insurance companies. It's the doctors. It's the medical suppliers. They all have a hand in ripping us off, brought to you by the government regulations that protects their markets in the US and prevents you from purchasing from the lowest cost provider.

      Medical care is cheap - medical regulation is expensive.

    36. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      I am also wondering how much a hearing aid would cost if you just built it yourself. I mean, the electronics shouldn't be that hard (at the very basic, a miniature microphone, op-amp, battery and a miniature speaker would give you an 80s-style hearing aid) even if you want a microprocessor, you can always mimic a bluetooth headset and make it a tad bigger - BT headsets are what, $20 these days so you should be able to build it even in small numbers for under $500. Maybe it wouldn't be FDA approved but neither are those TV/Church crap hearing aids they sell to old people and can be found in the $5 bin at your average department store.

      This was my reaction. Some people get ear molds done for headphones and I think it costs a couple hundred bucks just for that. But other than the mold it seems like the electronics would be pretty standard.

    37. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Ill swap my two 6000 hearing aids that have to be repurchased every few years with a 'choice' your measly 125 for a couple of months...

      Come on dude ever milk a cow... step up and help the wife out.

    38. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by phantomlord · · Score: 1

      My dad just went for a quarterly checkup visit... the doctor charge him a $15 copay (supplemental Medicare HMO style plan through Blue Choice) and the doctor charged Blue Choice another $180, of which they paid $65. I don't have insurance and my last appointment was $60 cash.

      Similarly, my dad was diagnosed with sleep apnea. His CPAP machine was $120 up front with a $15 payment every month (which they never charged me for some reason, I think their billing is screwed up since I sent in $100 for another copay for supplies and they credited my account but never cashed the check, but I digress), with the insurer paying apparently paying $680 (my dad has a 15% copay on medical equipment). He had an accident (he had a stroke and isn't always coherent, especially while sleeping) and ended up dumping his urinal into the CPAP machine. The replacement, off the books, albeit used? $100 cash for the entire machine.

      We hear a lot of talk about just how expensive it is to pay out of pocket, but from what I've seen, is my costs, as an uninsured person, are routinely cheaper than the costs when insurance, be it regular HMO coverage, Medicare or a Medicare Advantage type program, is involved. I dropped my insurance coverage in 2004 or so, after the premiums increased to $1457/3 months (nearly $6k a year) for a single 20 something in perfect health (NY rates suck). Since then, I've saved $42k in premiums while only paying out a couple hundred dollars in the same time. Obviously, for someone in their 50s or higher, their expenses may be different, but for me, it was beyond stupid to keep paying my premiums. Likewise, under ObamaCare, it's still stupid for me to pay premiums, I'll just sign up if I get some expensive disease (and millions of other people doing the same thing as me will bankrupt the system, which is when we'll deliberately get the hue and cry to switch to socialized medicine). $42k invested in your 20s will provide you a major advantage by the time you get to retirement age (or it can be invested into a house, starting a business or whatever makes the most sense for your personal needs).

      Most of the doctors I know would love to do away with the headaches of dealing with insurance regulations (imposed by insurers AND the government), so they could just get on with treating their patients. Most of them give up a lot of money just to hire someone to figure out how to play the games with the various insurers (including the government). The one thing that always seems to be forgotten, is the HMO system was created by government legislation and, to this day, is entirely governed by government regulation. When you hear the various politicians criticizing the HMO system, they're criticizing the very thing they created and have control over.

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    39. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Totally annecdotal, and may reflect the parents more than how the child get's it's milk, but in my experience breast fed children are healthier by far, having fewer allergies and fewer childhood illnesses. There are other benefits I have noticed as well, but those could have to do other environmental factors (many, not all, parents that chose formula do so because the mother does not want to be inconvenienced, which does reflect on what kind of mother we are talking about.)

    40. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by bungo · · Score: 1

      Ok, some more anecdotal evidence. We have two children. For our second, due to the medication my wife was taking, it wasn't advisable to breast feed, so we used formula.
      I haven't noticed any difference between the children. In fact the formula fed one developed better, as the breast fed one was always less than 0.05 percentile on weight and height.
      My non-scientific guess would be that genetic and environmental factors play a larger.

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    41. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Threni · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but breast milk stops turning up before the child can eat purely solids.

    42. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Our insurance didn't cover it 100% because it wasn't "medically necessary" (they'd rather you use formula) and it would have been around $125/month out of pocket for us.

      The whole pump can be had for about $250 USD. Here is the first one that I found browsing local websites (Hebrew) and if I spend some time I'll be able to find it cheaper:
      http://www.shilav.co.il/Baby/Content/Babies/BreastFeeding/Products,1369.aspx

      It would cost the insurance company less to buy the pump outright than to rent it for two months!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    43. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by TheEnigmaticT · · Score: 1

      It depends. You find an audiologist who's not a complete dick, and you can actually come out all right. My last hearing aid, I got from a awesome guy near where I used to live in the US who ended up charging me $400 for a BTE, largely because he builds them himself from parts. I live in Poland now, but when I get my next aid (sometime in 2012) you can bloody well believe it will wait until I can get back home to buy it.

      --
      TheEnigmaticT www.gog.com
    44. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I am also wondering how much a hearing aid would cost if you just built it yourself.

      I'll admit I didn't think of that. I stumped up for hearing aids that are so discreet, it's hard for anyone to see them, but if I had thought about it, I could have come up with something scary that looks like a product of the Steampunk Workshop. ;-)

    45. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by slackerdeluxe · · Score: 1

      I suppose if the recent attempt at health care reform covered hearing loss we'd be facing Deaf Panels.

    46. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If they worked the same way the VA uses to decide what percentage of disability your hearing loss entitles you to, I'd have no complaints. A trained audiologist measures your hearing in each ear and finds the percentage of loss for each ear. Then, they go to a chart and select the row that represents the ear with the greater loss and the column with the lesser and wherever the two cross is your award. Fair, objective and impartial.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    47. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Hearing aids are overpriced because it's a seller's market and health insurance companies are willing to shell out whatever the manufacturer asks.

      haha wait, so now these oh-so-evil for-profit health insurance companies are willing to shell out whatever money someone asks of them?

    48. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      When did I call health insurance companies evil or complain about the fact that they need to make a profit to stay in business? You must have me confused with somebody who doesn't understand basic economics.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    49. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one the hospital trained my wife to use while we were still in the hospital and the one she felt comfortable using.

      FYI, because you're obviously unaware of the situation, my wife had poor milk production coupled with his lack of desire to feed normally and needed to squeeze every last bit she could out. By using a consumer grade pump, from Target no less, she was getting less than 1/8th as much milk and that was not enough to sustain life.

      So before you go off telling people how to raise their children and what equipment to use, I suggest you sit back and think to yourself, "you know, maybe they made the best choice for themselves and their children."

    50. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Medical providers only get the contract price for what they charge insurers. The "list price" is meaningless. Your conclusion that the insurance company would have paid the full list price is wrong. Your unsupported extrapolation that the hospital is therefore the problem, and not the insurance company is likewise completely, provably wrong. There are additional facts that will prove this (obviously simply proving the inverse proposition wrong doesn't prove the proposition), but I won't clog this post with what most people already know.

      2. BUY A BREAST PUMP. The top of the line Medela is less than $300 and will last you several kids with minimal maintenance and parts cost. We are about to use ours on child #3. Renting a "hospital grade" breast pump is pointless.

    51. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Breast milk normally keeps being produced so long as the child is breast feeding, that can be well past the stage the child is eating purely solids, it is mostly down to how long the mother is willing to put up with it.

    52. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by jmuzz · · Score: 1

      We told the medical equipment company we didn't have insurance and suddenly the price was just under $60/month. What does that mean? They overcharge the insurance companies by at least 3x what their actual costs are because they can.

      Of course they may just have a policy of helping out those without insurance by giving them a discount rate because they figure you will already be struggling.
      They might not have made any profit (and that is the reason the company exists) from your hire, just charged enough to cover the wear, administration and insurance costs on the machine. That machine is an investment which also needs to pay itself off, plus turn a percentage of profit.

      This is the problem in society today. Someone performs an act of charity, then they get it turned around and slapped in the face by it.

    53. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Our insurance companies aren't exactly the problem. It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.

      The problem is that there are several middle men, no transparency in who's paying for what, no ability/expectation for insurance holders to control hidden costs, and complicated layers of laws designed to hold the whole scam together.

      If medical insurance were treated like car insurance where it was not connected to your job and you only used it in an emergency -- but paid out of pocket for most routine needs, everything would be different.

    54. Re:Of course they're overpriced. by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      not you but plenty do :)

  18. Three reasons why this happens by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    1. Insurance pays that much, so all get priced at that level

    2. It lets them do the "50%" bit. If you shop around and make it clear you are not using insurance, you can get these special deals.

    3.None of them are really good enough. So when the technology improves, they keep the price the same and upgrade the quality.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Three reasons why this happens by sclark46 · · Score: 1

      Insurance does not pay for hearing aids!!!!!

    2. Re:Three reasons why this happens by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Correction: Some insurance does pay for hearing aids. Blue Shield of California will cover them if you subscribe to one of a few specific plans, and only then if you purchase the coverage as an option. The coverage, if you choose to purchase it, will pay up to $2,000 toward hearing aids every 24 months ... so it won't cover the cost of aids for both ears completely, and might not fully cover the cost of a single hearing aid, if the prices really are what are quoted here. And it's not clear whether you have to subscribe to the coverage before you go deaf ... it's possible that you would then have a "preexisting condition" and you'd be ineligible for the coverage. Them's the breaks in the U.S. of A.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:Three reasons why this happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife wears a high-end pair of $7,000 hearing aids, with a blue-tooth TV/IPOD interface and telephone/cell phone interface. They communicate wirelessly between the two aids to send delayed audio from one channel to the other to help with directional location of sounds. Without them, she'd be functionally deaf. With them, we get by pretty well. She flies a plane, can be a secretary for a non-profit group she belongs to, take minutes, etc. The price is staggering and we struggle with the payments. I'd like to see them less expensive like the rest of the posters here. But compared to what living with-out them would be like, it's a bargain! That might be the underlying reason for the price. The market is still looking for the price point the technology will support, like all good capitalists.

      But there is another costly factor in the price of hearing aids that should be considered. That is the time spent by the audiologist working with the patient. I can only assume that the industry works universally this way, but it's nice not to be nickle and dimed to death after making such an expensive purchase.

      My wife visits her Dr. of Audiology monthly for adjustments, and has been for two years. We are on the fourth set of ear molds, trying to get the right fit between sealing out feedback, and yet being comfortable. We have tried literally a dozen refinements in the frequency response - gain settings. As she has adapted to wearing them, and we have zero'd in on the optimum settings, she has been hearing better and better, and getting more comfortable. But we haven't paid a penny for any of this work. It was all covered in the purchase price (except for a new mold when we switched suppliers looking for a better fit). I'd guess any health professional would need to charge ~$100 for a 15+ minute office visit (at least that's my experience with my family doctor and the kid's orthodontist). So that works out to several thousand dollars of personal service that comes with the hearing aids. Not to mention losing two of them and getting free replacements (part of the purchase price was insurance against loss, apparently a common event as people learn to care for new hearing aids).

      In closing, if you need hearing aids for a SERIOUS hearing problems, find a good Doctor Of Audiology, not someone with just a masters degree or a hack hearing distributor technician (which in our state, allows you to legally fit and sell aids). If your audiologist specialist advertises "looking for volunteers to test new hearing aid technology free", run for your life! We went through several folks as we learned the ropes in this business and wasted a few thousand $ on junk aids before finding someone who a) really knew what was needed in my wife's case and b) cared and wanted to work with us for the best experience.

  19. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the average American household is well above that.

    They may be counting single-occupancy dwellings as "households," but the important part is, probably a great many of the people who require hearing aids are either already on fixed income or are close to retirement.

    And if there is a price bubble, the Chinese will be right there to correct it.

    TFA claims the ones we're paying $2,000 for are already being manufactured in China for $100. The problem is that a hearing aid is technically a durable medical device. Many people prefer to consult with a professional to get the right model, correct fit, etc., and some states actually forbid hearing aids being sold by mail or by anyone other than a licensed professional. So that kinda puts a damper on the grey market for many people.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  20. Not always by wilhil · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for America, but, in England, it is possible to get standard non prescription ones for around £20-£40 that are very good. The basic ones work, and they do work well. The only real difference with the more expensive ones are that they are medically certified. They are nearly always the same specification. That being said, the medical ones usually always are personalised / they take a cast of your ear and are a lot more comfortable. However - even with castings and all, I don't think it is worth the cost! (I do not wear one, I have a friend who does and I had this chat a while ago when I couldn't believe the price!)

    1. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not convinced that's entirely right. The non-prescription ones in Boots are something like £120-240.

      Proper ones also have other advantages. The main one is that they are programmed for your particular hearing loss. But you can also get ones with better sound quality, better microchips to cut out background noise, one's with positional audio, and also ones which go directly to the bone or the cochlea if needed.

      The one's for taking a cast of your ear are the one's that sit inside the canal. They are less conspicuous, but can make you hear your voice louder in your own ear. You can get used to it though.

      Not all hearing aids are available on the NHS (although the one's that are are indeed free), but you get a wider range going private too.

      As for your friend, perhaps it was simply he didn't have particularly severe hearing loss. The picture is a little more diverse...

    2. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend should get a referral to audiology. If he needs hearing-aids he should be able to get them from the NHS. He'd get hearing tests, aids, moulds, batteries, upgrades etc, for free, forever. They don't give out tiny, expensive, cosmetic type aids but they do a good job in programming their aids to do what you need them to do, and they give you whichever type of mould you like (soft, hypoallergenic, vented, shells etc). When I last went to get mine programmed I was told they can add a setting specifically for listening to classical music, amongst many other unusual options! When I last went to get mould impressions made I was told I can get an upgrade, even though my aids are only a few years old. Nobodty who sells £20-40 aids are going to be able to give as much help as the NHS. Really, your friend would be doing himself a huge favour to get that referral.

    3. Re:Not always by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, I went in to my specialist and got a checkup and then fitted for a hearing aid. She went through the motions of explaining the extra stuff and that adding Blue Tooth would be another $300 on top of the $49.95 she quoted. She offered to have me take a set she had with her on vacation with me while mine was being ordered and configured but she needed $50 up front. I didn't think it was a problem. Basically pay for it first then exchange it for the pair I wanted. At the end of the 45 minutes, she pulled out the paperwork and I saw it was $4,995.00 !! She didn't think I was seriously thinking it was $49.95 and of course being a techie, I didn't think it was really $4,995.00.

      Of course I didn't get it. My hearing loss from physical abuse as a kid, working in data centers, riding motorcycles, and listening to music wasn't $5,000 serious.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  21. a little fishy by antant007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An article on how expensive hearing aids are from a hearing aid company that advertises their low costs.

    --
    GENERATION 9882463: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig & add a random number to the generation.
    1. Re:a little fishy by kanto · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome /.'s new corporate sponsors; now if we could only make sure everyone tuning in can read.

      Robotic Overlord brought to you by Audicus

    2. Re:a little fishy by BillDaCatt · · Score: 1

      I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed. The article seems more like an ad campaign than a consumer interest essay.

  22. Welcome to health care inflation by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Everything has been going in price related to medicine over the cost of inflation, whether it is a hip replacement, basic painkillers, to hospital stays.

    They are expensive because people have insurance and the government covers it. Therefore, free money = raising the price as high as humanly possible and expect Bernanke to pay for it by printing more money to Medicaid or having your $800 monthly HMO plan. Patents as well insurre monopolies on all parts so they can charge as high as the sky.

    This is one of the biggest reasons why social security is in trouble. Not from hearing aids particularly, but because it is a common practice to price gouge and patent the hell out of everything to raise profits.

    If no one had health insurance, I would bet the medical industry would make cheaper products. Alternatively, if we had a socialistic system with price controls where everyone was insured the problem would go away as well. Like that is going to happen with the Tea party in the US.

  23. Weak article, but good points by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    While hearing aids (and many other medical items and drugs) are ludicrously overpriced, the article is too shallow to merit the front page of /. - it's around what I'd expect of a USA Today slow news day item if only they didn't have ads from hearing aid manufacturers.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:Weak article, but good points by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Lol. Neither is half the programming crap that gets discussed, but you don't hear me complaining. It would appear that medical concerns are a popular topic; I agree, and you don't. It would appear that programming slander/gossip/biz is a popular topic; I disagree, you probably like it.
      Move on.

    2. Re:Weak article, but good points by sjames · · Score: 1

      TFA is weak, but surely /. has a few members that can flesh the story out.

      We're talking about an intersection of amplifiers, DSP, health care, and econony.

  24. Social security is in trouble? by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

    How so? It's fully self-funded, it's solvent through 2036 last I heard, and lifting the tax cap above $106k will fix it permanently.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    1. Re:Social security is in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How so? It's fully self-funded, it's solvent through 2036 last I heard, and lifting the tax cap above $106k will fix it permanently.

      And what planet are your from? It doesn't matter whether or not there is limit on SS taxable income, the problem is Congress pilfering the funds to "balance the budget" and leaving essentially worthless IOUs in the place of all the cash. Combined that with the fact the SS was designed to be funded by 10 workers for each retiree and will soon be operating with 4 retirees for each worker.. SS is doomed (late baby boomer not expecting to be able to collect anything from SS, I'm not even eligible to retire until 2027 on early and 2032 for full).

      Until the American voting populous wakes up and starts voting based on what is best for them in the long term instead of what is best for the next month or year, Social Security will never survive.

    2. Re:Social security is in trouble? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Social Security ran a deficit last year due to decreased employment and an increase in retirement (due to demographics and people choosing to retire rather than be unemployed). It's running a deficit this year (for the same reason plus the 2% reduction in payroll taxes). It will most likely run a deficit next year and in it's current state, it may never run a surplus or break even again. Increasing the tax cap or the retirement age would fix it, but there seems to be no willingness to do either.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Social security is in trouble? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You're right, but consider further. Even if SS had dollar bills saved instead of IOUs, there would be no difference. Paper and ink has negligible real value. Even if SS had real reserves (gold, real estate, stocks), there would be some inherent weakness in the program, because in the end, SS is a claim on future production. If there's nobody around to provide the goods that SS recipients want/need, no amount of reserves will provide those goods.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  25. Keep telling yourself that by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    There is no inflation, according to the Fed. Just don't look at the farm prices which have increased 30% year over year, and never at energy prices. Or technology prices. The government justifies the cost of these new hearing aids as being the same as before because today's hearing aids are _so_much_better. This is called hedonics. So while your wage hasn't gone up at all, your standard of living is being flushed down the toilet. But don't worry the government is printing lots more money for you so that you can wall-paper your house with it in a few years.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  26. BounceBounce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like most electronic things follow a cycle: they get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, and just about the time they're about to start giving them away in boxes of cereal they come up with a batch of new "features" to bounce the price back up again.

  27. I wear 'em... by Vehstijul · · Score: 2

    I've been wearing the suckers in both ears since I was in 2nd grade due to a high level of conductive hearing loss. I'm lucky that my family can afford them.

    I've been approached many times – both domestically and while abroad – by people who needed them, but couldn't afford them. This may make sense in third world countries where people may not have access to more advanced technology, but it makes zero sense in "first world" countries.

    One possible reason why the technology is so expensive is that many of the leading companies (Oticon, Phonak, amongst others) are actually in Switzerland and Denmark, and manufacture them -as far as I can tell- in their home countries. Just a thought.

    Either way, there should be some kind of government program for these. The Walmart and AirMall (seriously - look at the AirMall catalog next time you fly.) brands just won't cut it if someone has advanced hearing-loss.

  28. When did advertisements come to /. front page? by knighten · · Score: 1

    And why?

    1. Re:When did advertisements come to /. front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why?

      I agree, the article is nothing but an ad dressed as an informative piece. Trying to sell use products from http://www.audicus.com/category/hearing-aids at the end of the article... Nice

  29. My solution by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    My wife keeps yelling at me to get hearing aids - but I just pretend I don't hear her.

  30. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

    well you pay for the medical professional's advice and consultation outside the already incredible price for the hearing aid, so charging $2000 for a $100 device is really just an incredible abuse of power. This is why for profit medicare sucks.

  31. Yes, and a candy bar bubble too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking inflation into account, the price has actually gone down by about 10% since 1997, not doubled.

  32. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    depends on where you live, California? New York? maybe not. 1.5 hours left of Louisville? A decent job might only net you 2 grand a month before taxes.

    The states are totally uneven when it comes to average income, so you have to average the averages which nets you numbers like this

  33. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An education in medicine isn't cheap. Nor is running an operation. If it can be done cheaper, someone will find a way. There are enough doctors out there that collusion is impossible.

  34. Three Words Explain it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Covered By Medicare

    Prices have a magical way of finding themselves to Maximum Medicare Reimbursement +0-30%

  35. Yes of course this is bubble by microbee · · Score: 1

    take out a loan while you still can, and foreclose it when the bubble bursts.

  36. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by billcopc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This.

    Say what you will about financial motivation, but for-profit healthcare is a morally bankrupt and ultimately self-defeating strategy. I'm fine with the doctors and professionals getting paid, everyone needs a job, but these people should not be greedy middlemen in the sales industry. They're not "adding value", they're double-dipping.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  37. They are cheap in China by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

    Just get one on dealextreme for 5 bucks. Even better get a dozen, and pray for one of them not to be DOA.

    1. Re:They are cheap in China by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

      (replying to myself)

      The parent post was meant to be a joke, but after posting I decided to check if there is any truth to it. It turns dx does have many different devices, and some people compare the 10$ hearing aids to 1k$+ branded ones, and even find them very good.

      Just check these reviews: http://www.dealextreme.com/feedbacks/BrowseReviews.dx/sku.23194

      (Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with DX or any other chinese site in any way)

    2. Re:They are cheap in China by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was about to post the same thing.

      http://s.dealextreme.com/search/hearing+aid

      That's about what I'd expect it to cost, given the price of electronics these days.

      The only downside to dealextreme is that it's a pretty slow delivery, allow a few weeks.

  38. Consumer Reports -- more objective source by nbauman · · Score: 2

    Here's the Consumer Reports article on hearing aids
    http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/home-medical-supplies/hearing/hearing-aids/overview/hearing-aids-ov.htm

    and here's a Washington Post article about it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201623.html

    Unfortunately it's 2 years old, and the ratings are behind a paywall (CR doesn't take ads, and they've got to pay the bills somehow).

    Also unfortunately they only tested hearing aids selling for $1,800 to $6,800 per pair.

    They said there's about a 100% markup, so there's room to negotiate.

    What I was really looking for, and what I couldn't find, was an article from an audiology journal which rated the low-priced hearing aids. They said that there were $500 hearing aids that were quite adequate for most people.

    Can anybody who follows this research help me out with some cites?

    1. Re:Consumer Reports -- more objective source by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
      In my country and province (Canada, Quebec). The government is paying for hearing aids, but only for low-end. So, this is about the price the government is paying for most hearing aids. They are fine for most older people, however, the young and professionnally active people would benefit from higher end hearing aids with more sophisticated features. Unfortunately, we must pay them in full if we want them. The government won't even pay the 500$ they would be willing to pay if you pick the hearing aids on the approved list which are selling for about 500$ as I already mentioned.

      Hearing aids with programmable DSP and with many modes and Bluetooth features are hardly required for active peoples. Acoustic or EM coupling with phones is not sufficient for those having severe hearing loss.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    2. Re:Consumer Reports -- more objective source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get what you pay for. I am severely deaf and have high-end hearing aids that have feedback modulation, multi-channel DSP, alternate profiles for voices, music, and telephones and an equalizer that balances the amplification to match my hearing loss, plus other goodies. It makes a difference between being able to carry on a conversation in a crowd and being unable to talk to other people. In my case: working or not working. The low-end ones are often dumb amplifiers. Think of the difference between, say, a Macbook Air and a hand calculator. They both do arithmetic but that is the extent of the similarity.

    3. Re:Consumer Reports -- more objective source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's the Consumer Reports article on hearing aids
      http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/home-medical-supplies/hearing/hearing-aids/overview/hearing-aids-ov.htm

      and here's a Washington Post article about it.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201623.html

      Unfortunately it's 2 years old, and the ratings are behind a paywall (CR doesn't take ads, and they've got to pay the bills somehow).

      Also unfortunately they only tested hearing aids selling for $1,800 to $6,800 per pair.

      They said there's about a 100% markup, so there's room to negotiate.

      What I was really looking for, and what I couldn't find, was an article from an audiology journal which rated the low-priced hearing aids. They said that there were $500 hearing aids that were quite adequate for most people.

      Can anybody who follows this research help me out with some cites?

      Link to article aja.asha.org

      Link to blog talking about article: blog.starkeypro.com

    4. Re:Consumer Reports -- more objective source by midicase · · Score: 1

      I have one alternative. Hunting stores. I recall hearing a spot done on the radio by a popular consumer advocate some time ago mentioning that some of the exact same hearing aids are also available at hunting stores, as low as $49.

      This blurb is is older than the when I heard it but gives you the general idea:

      http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/uncategorized/finding-the-hearing-aid-thats-right-for-you/nCtt/

      The spot I heard mentioned the store line named Gander, which apparently the audiologist industry is try to get banned from them doing so. Sorry no source.

    5. Re:Consumer Reports -- more objective source by nbauman · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the main thing that distinguishes a hearing aid from a simple amplifier is that the hearing aid doesn't amplify sound when it's too loud -- so that it wouldn't amplify background noise. For a hunter's aid, it wouldn't amplify the sound of a gunshot.

      The second thing that a hearing aid does is amplify sound selectively at the frequencies you need. So if your hearing is tapering off at the high end of the hearing range, the hearing aid should amplify just the high end and not the middle range. The cheap hearing aids, including the ones sold at hunting shops, don't do that. They're set for a generic hearing loss profile, which would work for many people, but not everyone.

      Radio Shack was selling one of the cheap amplifiers for about $30, then marked it down to $20. I was going to buy one, just to play with, but I saw reviews by customers and by audiologists that the ones in the under-$500 price range weren't too good, even the disposable $50 Songbird. They weren't much better than using nothing at all, and people who bought them usually wound up not using them.

      I'd like to see better reviews.

      Given Moore's law, we should have $20 hearing aids today that are as good as the $3,000 hearing aids of 10 years ago.

      We should have $20 hearing aids that are good enough for 90% of the hearing aid population.

      We should be able to program them ourselves through our own computer.

      I feel sorry for the audiologists. They went to school for so long, learning how to fit hearing aids, it was a good business, and now their main profit center may be reduced to a niche business.

      But that's what the internet is doing to all of us.

    6. Re:Consumer Reports -- more objective source by Scoth · · Score: 1

      I realize that hearing aids need to be especially good quality for good results, but it seems like in this day and age of miniaturized and cheap electronics that there should be dirt cheap hearing aids that are good quality and small. I have a very hard time believing that it costs as much as a good used car to make a pair of amplifiers, even especially good ones.

      Or maybe I'm misunderestimating just what goes into the things. I don't claim particular knowledge

  39. yeah they're fucking expensive by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I was wondering this myself since my grandmother is just about deaf and could really benefit from a pair. At this point they are worth more than their weight in gold or even diamonds. Theres nothing that fancy inside. The better ones are programmed to only amplify the frequencies where your hearing is effected. Its a racket pure and simple with inflated prices like diamonds.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:yeah they're fucking expensive by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      The better ones are far more complex and feature-complete than you describe. You may want to do a bit more research. Simply amplifying the sounds in the frequency range required was done decades ago with analog units. The newer digital units do all kind of noise reduction and real-time adjustment to the users environment and hearing. That's the reason why I can listen to the birds singing while the neighbor is mowing his lawn.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:yeah they're fucking expensive by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      The programming sucks. Real-time adjustment in particular sucks, IMO, and the most recent models use that for the default program, and you can't change that... You can change the other programs, but operation goes like this: Turn hearing aid on. Wait 6 seconds for it to turn on. Change programs to the one that's constant.

      Ya, maybe I'd get a better experience if I could tweak the programming myself with my own set of hardware, but that's not how they'll let me do it...

    3. Re:yeah they're fucking expensive by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like you need a different prescription, or a different vendor. I did just fine with the Widex Seno Divas and the Phonak Ultras. I actually dislike the constant programs since I lose the sense of distance based on relative volume.

      --
      C|N>K
    4. Re:yeah they're fucking expensive by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      Certainly part of it is that I've been wearing hearing aids since I was 3 (23 now...). Started off with analog, and so am used to the constant sound setting. Real-time adjustment sucks for music - and I can't see how it wouldn't?

      My previous pair of digitals (phonak Elevas) (I've used phonak for all 5 sets of aids, never been comfortable with the other brands I've tried) were more flexible in how they were programmed... My current ones are Naida V's and take 6 seconds to turn on (compared to 2, previously) thanks to, presumably, a bunch of new "features", none of which I use.

      No idea what you mean by losing a sense of distance... A sound 10 feet away is going to be quieter than one two feet away, so why wouldn't constant programs let you distinguish that?

    5. Re:yeah they're fucking expensive by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Dunno why its different, but chances are that we have completely different types of loss. And different prescriptions.

      When I meant real time adjustment, I mean the noise reduction and that kind of thing - I listen to classical music, and nothing ruins a concert like some asshole with a cellphone or a cough. The newer phonaks do a good job of masking out the background noises and letting me concentrate on the music.

      Whereas the constant programs, at least in mine, seem to amplify everything equally which is annoying. I do like the way the phonaks adjust to the telephone tho.

      FWIW my loss is neural damage, roughly 75 dB's down from 1000 Hz on up. Basically from birth, I'm 44 now. I previously used Widex Senso's which are also good, but the phonaks have a bit more punch. Prior to all that I wore analog Miracle-Ears but I just can't recommend them anymore.

      --
      C|N>K
  40. Paging Garrett Morris by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    If you're old enough, you get the joke.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Paging Garrett Morris by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

      Good one!

  41. Cochlear Implants by nbetcher · · Score: 1

    If you think that hearing aids are expensive, consider the cost of cochlear implants. Cochlear implants cost tens of thousands of dollars, the surgery costs nearly $100k, and the external device (like a hearing aid, but a little larger) costs over $10k. That's just for one ear and the hearing quality is like 1/10th of a person with cochlear hair! Plus they only last for about 20 years (including the internal device) depending on the model and some other circumstances. $8k for a hearing aid is a steal.

    1. Re:Cochlear Implants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my experience with a left ear cochlear implant is different. OHSU wanted $80k, my insurance company paid $65k, and i paid $3k co-pay for the implant. The difference in audio quality between my old hearing aid and the implant is incomparable. I can no longer wear my $3k right ear hearing aid because it sounds like i have water in my ears when i wear it. Of course, being deaf my entire life, I don't really have a way to compare my result with your claims of a 1/10th hearing quality.

      Who's really qualified to judge the quality of such a thing? A deaf guy like me without any real unassisted hearing or someone who has never needed assisted hearing?

    2. Re:Cochlear Implants by Lanforod · · Score: 1

      Double check your facts. One thing that has been dropping in cost is Cochlear implants, both the surgery, the internal component, and the external processor/microphone. Last time i checked, it was under 50k. Do a flight to India, and get it done for 10k. Most folks with Cochlear implants do as well as someone with a severe loss and a good pair of hearing aids. Bi-lateral is definitely better than one of course. Most Canadian provinces - maybe all, i'm not sure - will pay for at least one (surgery/internal device and programming etc). Some will pay for two. You have to qualify, and you do have to pay for the processor (external part). For this whole thread - price bubble? Yeah, maybe. I bought my last pair of Phonak Naida IX for $6500, including a 1000 cash rebate from MSRP of 7500 at the time (price has dropped on them now over 2 years. Were they worth it? Yes. Sure, I skipped a vacation that year so i could afford the hearing aids, but still worth it. In 3 or 4 years, once these have worn out, do I expect to spend another 7k or so for the next set? Yup, and unless I get a better paying job, I'll probably skip another vacation. If anything, I'm spending more on hearing aids now than my parents did 20 years ago as a kid - buying them myself, I want to buy to top end ones, and I don't have as many problems with them as I did when I was a kid - they've vastly improved many of the issues that hearing aids used to include. I tried out 4 or 5 kinds for a couple weeks each before settling on the Naida IX - even though it was the most expensive! I would never wear those $14 hearing aids - feedback, uncomfortable, least of all they are ugly, etc... I might buy one just for kicks though if I'm ever in China!

  42. Costco is much cheaper~! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get my hearings aids form Costco, same quality, better warranty and roughly half the price and the audiologists are on salary so no hard sell.

  43. Trouble With Social Security?!? by xquercus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is one of the biggest reasons why social security is in trouble.

    This is so wrong! You have bought into the shell game and misdirection that so many politicians have been leading. The Social Security trust fund holds over $2.5 trillion. Most of this has been lent to other under funded government projects. That's the problem. We don't want to pay back the the money we borrowed from the Social Security system and instead say the system is broken. It isn't. The systems is fully self funded. We've just been treating the huge Social Security surpluses as a giant piggy bank for so long that we find it easier to say Social Security is broken than pay back the money we stole!

    1. Re:Trouble With Social Security?!? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The Social Security trust fund holds over $2.5 trillion

      Technically true, but does not hold this in cash, gold, or even piles of unmilled grain. It holds debt: It's invested in Treasuries.

      In other words, the money you pay for SS is used, in part, to incur a monetary obligation on your part to pay even more!

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Trouble With Social Security?!? by xquercus · · Score: 1

      Technically true

      Why do you feel the need to qualify this? Is technically true somehow less than just true?

      It holds debt: It's invested in Treasuries.

      Yes, as I explained above, the Social Security trust fund has been lent to pay for other underfunded programs. People who say there is a problem with Social Security funding have it all wrong. The problems is with all of the other underfunded programs -- not with Social Security. It's misdirection.

    3. Re:Trouble With Social Security?!? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The stealing is an inherent part of Social Security. It always has been, and it always will be as long as SS exists. It cannot be otherwise, because just as government cannot produce, so government cannot (in a meaningful way) save.

      The problem is not that SS has no reserves, it is that government has become such a huge thief that not only has the government no reserves, the government debt has exceeded the ability of the whole country to pay the interest on that debt, if things don't change drastically.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Trouble With Social Security?!? by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      just as government cannot produce

      Of course a government can produce. Governments produce lots of things, and they so by charging taxes and printing money. Yes, governments are more forceful in taking your money than businesses, where you have more choice (although often not very much choice). But that doesn't mean that they don't produce goods and services.

      so government cannot (in a meaningful way) save.

      A fiat government can't save money, because it would be plain stupid to save a resources that you yourself have exclusive rights to create. And any excessive reduction off debt would create unemployment by reducing the ability for the private sector to save and pay for stuff.

      But real prosperity doesn't come from money savings, but from productive investments. And the government can do that. Of course, it truly depends on how well your government uses unemployed labor.

      I personally highly favor a decentralized approach to the government employing unemployed, like described in this article. Many anti-government people have the right idea in that having a huge centralized government is ineffective. And that is why you want to decentralize the decisions about project. The federal government should do what it fits best for, which is funding (being the fiat owner) and oversight. (ensuring that local corruption doesn't grow too large)

      the government debt has exceeded the ability of the whole country to pay the interest on that debt,

      A fiat government can always pay the interest as it has the money printing ability. In fact, it doesn't actually need to loan money either, and only does so to subsidize savings.

      The real thing to worry about is the amount of production in a country. As how much is produced is what actually limits the government. That is why it is in the best interest of the government to make productive use of any unemployed. Inflation is just inflation, and doesn't matter to the government as long as enough things are produced. You simply can't get hyperinflation as long as production is going strong.

      There is a common misunderstanding that governments tax the economy by demanding taxes. That is actually completely backwards. The government taxing occurs when it buys goods and services from the private sector. Meanwhile what is named as taxing is mainly inflation reduction by claiming its own money back, as well as a way to force the private sector to accept the currency in the first place.

      Of course, all of this only applies to fiat economies, and not countries using some kind of currency standard like the euro countries.

  44. Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by DdJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hm... seems like an opportunity...

    1. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's brilliant! Heathkit, are you listening?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1
      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by unfortunateson · · Score: 1

      Well, selling what you design might be a little tough.
      First off, like cell phones, these things are going to be tied up in all sorts of patents (sure, not as many, but yes, there's going to be license fees).
      Second, and the biggie, depending on the type of hearing aid, it requires either a simple 510K filing or a whole Premarket Authorization (PMA), which means clinical trials, proof of efficacy, etc. These are medical devices, and subject to regulation. It's what stops people from selling snake-oil medicines and smartphone apps that cure acne.

      Read the FDA regulations: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm127086.htm
      It's not cheap to get those done -- there are user fees of $500K and higher for FDA filings.

      --
      Design for Use, not Construction!
    4. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a certifed medical device. That's where your costs and barriers to entry come into play. Now make that same device and sell it as a consumer entertainment product, and you might find them fetching under $100 bucks in mass production.

    5. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Now that CmdrTaco has retired, it's Matlock and stamp collecting posts from now on.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    6. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Heathkit: Nope. Sorry, can't afford a hearing aid.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      I remember a slashdotter talking about his friend in this industry who had one small shop in a mall that he ran with his wife.. the family had 3 houses cars and were living quite comfortably.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
  45. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    well you pay for the medical professional's advice and consultation outside the already incredible price for the hearing aid, so charging $2000 for a $100 device is really just an incredible abuse of power. This is why for profit medicare sucks.

    It may be an abuse of power, but I don't know that it's the doctor who's the abuser. Doctors are probably forced to buy everything through "the approved channels" -- they can't just fly someone to China and come back with a suitcase full of $100 hearing aids, and they're probably not even allowed to distribute literature to patients about shopping for a grey market hearing aid on their own. So if a patient has to go to a U.S. doctor, then the patient has to pay the U.S. price.

    It is funny, though. My parents, who are fairly Republican and were vehemently against "Obamacare," are already driving to Mexico to fill their prescriptions, where they cost something like 70 percent less. For some reason, my parents cannot see the doublethink of voting against healthcare reform despite the position they find themselves in. I think it's just the paralysis of fixed income -- you're so desperate to protect what you have right now that you will resist any change -- even though, deep down, you can feel the vice tightening around you.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  46. Insurance rarely covers hearing aids by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Unless you lose your hearing in an accident caused by an insured party, odds are good that you're paying for hearing aids out of pocket. Most health insurance, even group plans for large companies, will not pay for hearing aids.

  47. $200 phone, $200 hearing aid by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Here's my kind of guy. He sells a hearing aid for under $200.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-09/health/sc-health-0309-hearing-aid-20110309_1_hearing-aid-hearing-loss-hearing-loss-association

    Now hear this
    When it comes time to crank the volume on everyday banter, there are hearing aids that won't break the bank
    March 09, 2011
    By Barbara Mahany
    Chicago Tribune

    In 2007, when the iPhone came on the market, Cherukuri saw reports showing that the phone's components cost an average of $130 to $140. "I started thinking that if you can make a fantastic phone for under $200, I could make a hearing aid that's pretty good for about the same price," he said.

    This article also recommends

    http://www.hearingaidscentral.com/

    which starts at $300.

    1. Re:$200 phone, $200 hearing aid by mindflux · · Score: 0

      Interesting link. Thanks for that.

    2. Re:$200 phone, $200 hearing aid by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Nice guy, he only makes 1500% profit reselling those
      http://www.dealextreme.com/p/axon-hearing-aid-v163-4326

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:$200 phone, $200 hearing aid by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Interesting, the $14 Axon hearing aid gives the specs, but I can't find the specs for the other ones.

      I think the main difference between the Axon and the $100 MDHearingAid.com. is that MDHearingAid.com is programmable to match the frequencies of your hearing loss, and Axon isn't programmable.

      Or is Axon just assembling the same components more cheaply?

      I'd love to take one of those $14 hearing Axon aids to a professor of audiology for an evaluation, as the Chicago Tribune did.

    4. Re:$200 phone, $200 hearing aid by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting article. But I'll note two things. Even this budget aid /starts/ at $300, TFA states at the end that he sells at a range of $295 to $895. And his aid is only good for mild to moderately severe hearing loss. This is great for many people. But it leaves out a very significant niche of people who need to shell out thousands because they have what is considered a profound hearing loss.

      Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.

  48. Medical device/disability premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take, for example, my son's AAC device. He could have the insurance company pay for one, for 4-8k. Does nothing but generate speech (he has apraxia). Or we could buy an ipad and the software and case and speakers for about 1k. It's not a medical device, insurance won't cover it, but look at how much cheaper it is! AND it does other stuff, too (which is why its not considered medical). They actually pay people to block AAC users from the windows desktop on some devices -- because that is what makes it a fancy medical device. The therapy balls he use can be had in a therapists catalog for $70, or you could get one from Target for $20.

  49. Going Overseas from USA to Get a Bargain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the past decade or so I've been reading about Americans going to foreign countries to get medical work done to $ave money, e.g. dental work in Thailand. What about hearing aids? What kind of savings can Americans get by going overseas for hearing aids, tests and the other costs involved?

  50. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

    I never said the doctor was the abuser - simply that the medical professional's advice was not a part of the $2000 cost - that's extra. I said that for profit medicare is wrong, and this is an example of that.

  51. Limited Private or Public Hearing Benefits by cmholm · · Score: 1

    The availability of subsidized hearing aids varies from one state to the next, whether you're talking private insurance, or Medicare/aid. Medicare doesn't cover hearing aids, or regular hearing exams. Most insurance plans cover $1500, at best.

    Too many people need hearing aids to spread the cost over a risk pool, so the user is usually covering most of the cost. The major cost center seems to be distribution and sales, with retail about an 800% markup from wholesale. So, I suspect there's a lot of cost that could be wrung out under a more efficient business model.

    As an aside, contrary to the whining in on-line forums, Medicare doesn't just pony up whatever a vendor bills for, but what they consider a "fair rate". Hence, health care suppliers stereotypically moan about Medicare "underpayment". Medicare as a whole isn't expensive because the program is spendthrift, it is expensive because they can't ditch customers... except in a wholesale manner via budget cuts.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Limited Private or Public Hearing Benefits by bgat · · Score: 1

      Medicare doesn't just pony up whatever a vendor bills for, but what they consider a "fair rate".

      Indeed, that's Medicare's dirty little secret: it doesn't _actually_ cover the full cost of the services it provides. The balance is added to the fees charged by the service provider to their non-Medicare customers. I have relatives in the health care profession, and based on conversations with them it generally seems that Medicare pays about half the amount that non-Medicare patients pay. (But the comparison is difficult to make because the rates charged to non-Medicare patients are really "soft" due to negotiated rates with their insurance companies, writedowns for cash-only customers, etc. etc. As a result, defining the "price" for a service is difficult at best).

      Based on that, I don't think a provider can make a living seeing only Medicare patients. It also means that using the general, per-capita cost of Medicare as a baseline for anything is pretty senseless.

      --
      b.g.
    2. Re:Limited Private or Public Hearing Benefits by cmholm · · Score: 1

      Re: "the full cost of the services"... well, we need to start from the fact that all up and down the various cost centers in US health care, we're paying more than western Europeans. That's on the aggregate, whether we're talking the totally private, but heavily regulated Swiss, or the totally public British NHS. Yet, we're not getting anything more out of it. You might argue the Europeans are free-riding on the advances of our expensive health system, but since most advances are paid for via public funding, I'm dubious.

      I'm going to punt and finish with something Matt Yglesias said in August, re: Doctors Say We Need To Pay Doctors More...
      I sometimes wonder how different health care politics would look in the United States if the AMA renamed itself “the American Doctors’ Union, AFL-CIO” or some such. I mean of course the AMA says that if doctors get paid less the world will end. But will it? Medicare is able to get away with low payment rates because it has such a giant customer base. There are a lot of old people out there, and they consume a lot of health care services. It’s hard to make a living as a doctor without serving those clients. If the rates get cut further, surely some doctors will try to get along without them, but how many will really be able to do so?
      The basic shape of the problem, however, is just a reminder that health care solutions ought to be systematic. If you cut Medicaid payment rates, providers will try to get by only seeing Medicare patients and patients with “private” health insurance. If you then try to cut Medicare rates too far, providers will try to get by only seeing patients with “private” health insurance. But even the “private” health insurance benefits from hefty government subsidies through the tax code and, in the future, through the health insurance exchanges. By moving toward all-payer rate setting we can cut excess expense while leaving providers with nowhere to run.

      --
      Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  52. The article misses quite a bit by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    (1) doesn't control for inflation
    (2) doesn't control for the transition from analog to digital that spiked prices in the late nineties/early 2000's
    (3) barely touches on the tremendous increase in sophistication in hearing aid technology between then and now

    As evidence of point (2), I bought a pair of digital hearing aids in 2001. They were $1,700 apiece. They were also the "low end" of the digital aids. Analog aids would have set me back half the price. Yet the "low end" digital aids from 2001 would be in the middle of the price spectrum TFA mentions.

    Moreover, the digital aids now do quite a bit that my 10 year old hearing aids can't do. For example, most new hearing aids allow for multiple settings to get the best mix of uni-directional and omni-directional microphone input for various situations: concert halls, crowded restaurants, lecture halls, etc.

    The other thing the article doesn't mention is that I can get my hearing aids "repaired" which basically means they're rebuilt from the ground up for $250 a pop these days. Prices have fallen, considerably for the same technology. What keeps pushing the prices up is new technology that, in most but not all cases, is definitely worth it.

  53. Uhm.. no? by rykin · · Score: 1

    Most of the hearing aids I know of costs from $1100-$3000. Not to say this isn't overpriced, but the article makes hearing aid prices seem much more sensational than they really are. This price range is for the BTE (behind the ear) models- not the super hidden in the canal models. Of course, your desire to hear is more important than your desire to be fashionable, right? People hardly notice BTE aids anyway. I've cycled through several BTE hearing aids in the last 10 years (due to loss or damage); all of them were prescribed by an audiologist. My most recent one, which is two years old, cost $1700.

  54. Open source hardware + 3D printer by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Except for the anechoic chamber in which to run the hearing test, there's nothing too exotic here.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:Open source hardware + 3D printer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) 3D printers still suck 2) Open source hardware still sucks Sorry Charlie...

    2. Re:Open source hardware + 3D printer by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      I can dream...

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
  55. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by macraig · · Score: 2

    "General unchecked avarice" is pretty much a perfect definition of capitalism.

    The only thing that would hold that avarice in check is a well-informed market that has a reasonable understanding of the products in the market, knows how to estimate things like cost to produce and profit margins, and actually cares enough to walk away when a transaction isn't a roughly equal exchange of value. I don't care how much government regulation you throw at a market, it won't a be a successful inhibition of that avarice in the absence of an educated market. The producers will always find ways to express their avarice in spite of regulation as long as there are enough Barnum-esque dumbshits willing to pay an unreasonable price.

    Notice that I used the word "would": we don't have that well-informed market, and haven't for a long time. Such a market might have existed once before the Industrial and Information Ages, but not since then. Our regulated - socialized - capitalism is a poor substitute for either a true libertarian free market or a genuine Marxian socialist economy, but that mongrel is the best we'll get for now. The species hasn't evolved enough general intelligence for the former nor enough ethics and cooperativeness for the latter. To dream the impossible dream, indeed!

  56. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    on the other hand where I live they send flyers out to get you to come into doctor X's office cause there is a over abundence of them and their offices are empty. In fact the last doctor I went to for an insurance physical was super happy to have me as their last patient before the closed the doors the next day.

    Much like computer shops in the late 90's you cant go 3 feet before tripping on one and frankly there is just not that much demand.

  57. WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't hear you!

  58. That's nothing by Fished · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a bill here from LabCorp. Price before insurance: $327.60 (for some routine bloodwork.) Price after insurance "adjustments": $14.88. So it's not just that they overcharge, it's that they deliberately overcharge the uninsured who have no idea what anything should cost.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My child needed care out of state, however our insurance, PPO, did not have doctors in the network in the area so we went to the first available. The bill was:

      ~$600 - .19 (Insurance - deductible) but the hospital made a mistake (thinking our insurance is HMO) and charged us $140 which is max allowable for the procedure (Medicare would have paid $127 I calculated)

      Later they found out about the error and reminder billed us for the remaining ~$460...

      Long story short we found out that it would cost us $100 if we went to emergency room or $360 if we claimed no insurance coverage which we could negotiate down further (they don't negotiate if you have insurance)

    2. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's not just that they overcharge, it's that they deliberately overcharge the uninsured who have no idea what anything should cost.

      Indeed. A few years ago my daughter had very serious health problems (eventually running into many $100K). The "bills" from the hospital would routinely be adjusted down by the insurance company to one third to one half of the original bill. That experience taught me that perhaps the greatest value of insurance is not that they cover the cost but that they have negotiated reasonable costs with the providers for me.

    3. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The price is affected in a few ways. The $327.60 is the basic price. your health insurance company has negotiated a contract price that is likely much lower than $327.60. From this contract price, you have a co-pay that is $14.88. Your health insurance company should have paid much more than $14.88 for this service.

      Think about it, at $7.50/hour wage, the lab technician costs the company around $10.00 per hour. The cost of materials to collect your blood and process your paperwork is another $5.00. They can't be losing money on each insured patient that comes in, or they would refuse to take insured patients!

    4. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have the conclusion a bit backward. The price after insurance adjustments is what you still pay after your insurance kicks in. (most insurance companies have a maximum that they will pay out for any given item and the customer is on the hook for the difference....OR the payee mysteriously drops their cost after seeing what the ins. co. will reimburse.)

      Most companies deliberately overcharge the INSURED (because that money is guaranteed) to make up for losses when they are not paid by private payers OR so they can reduce the cost to private payers.

    5. Re:That's nothing by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Your conclusion needs work. Some insurance companies set allowed rates by averaging what costs are across several providers. You jack up the cost to bring up the average, since most people come in with insurance. Screwing the uninsured is merely a side effect.

      It's not a good business model to significantly overcharge for a very small part of your potential market. That just makes them avoid you until it's impossible.

      Also, these providers agree to a price list in order to be a provider for an insurance company. The only reason is that insured people will almost always go to a place that takes their insurance. Accept only a few insurance companies and you miss out on patients, so they agree.

      In short, everything they do is oriented towards insured patients, with little regard for uninsured. Insured patients are 80% or more guaranteed because that's what the insurance company will cover. If they have to chase down payments from patients, it will be a small portion of the total bill. Uninsured patients may or may not pay, and may declare bankruptcy.

    6. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have the conclusion a bit backward. The price after insurance adjustments is what you still pay after your insurance kicks in.

      No, the OP had it exactly right. The provider sends a bill to the insurance company for $100 (and cc's you). The insurance company responds, "Yeah, right. Our negotiated fee for that procedure is $50, which all you're going to get. We'll pay $40 and the patient will pay the remaining $10." That's the statement you and the provider get from the insurance company.

    7. Re:That's nothing by tibit · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's hard to understand to people outside the US perhaps, but here the practice is as follows: the providers have a fee schedule. Everyone pays that by default. Then they have contracts with various insurance companies that slash that fee schedule by up to 90% for some services. They will also slash prices if you apply for financial assistance, but you have to know that, and you have to be persistent at getting it and making sure their "random" delays don't make you miss deadlines that could cost you your credit rating (score).

      So if you are not in the know, you'll be royally shafted by the providers. Because you may miss that they didn't apply contractual adjustments, and you're left with 90% of the bill even if your insurance terms claim you'd be left with only 10%. Or you don't have insurance and get the retail price -- that's like buying all your USB cables from Monster Cable at Best Buy, when you can get the same ones from DigiKey for 90% less.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the price on a tumor-removal surgery one of my parents just had. Price without insurance: $18,000. Price with insurance: $2,500, none out-of-pocket. And no cash discount that we could ascertain.

      Absolutely absurd.

    9. Re:That's nothing by ildon · · Score: 1

      They're overcharging the INSURED because the people doing the buying feel no connection to the product or service being purchased. Insurance companies can raise the rates slightly and split the cost over millions of people, so they don't really feel the increase. For medical suppliers (hardware and services) and insurance companies it's "win win" because they both see an increase in revenue when medical prices go up. Uninsured people are just collateral damage.

    10. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also overcharge for higher profits and to cover the people who don't have insurance and can't or won't pay. These higher profits often go to overpaid CEOs.

  59. Let's give them some serious thought ... by Kiliani · · Score: 2

    First a disclaimer: in my household we have to buy high-powered BTE every 4 years or so, so I am close to the subject.

    So, let's see:

    First off, we should discern between medically useful features and convenience features, realizing that there is no sharp line between them. We buy fully digital, high-power BTE aids with complex programming capabilities, and those aids (which are pretty much top of the line when it comes to their intended function, i.e., help the wearer hear as well as possible) do not cost $8000 a pair. Not even close - try about half that. We forego bluetooth (but not FM), a gazillion programs, microscopic sizes the size of a fly head (not available of you are profoundly deaf anyways) and God knows what else for pooling our resources (= $$$) into maximum power and amplification/programming capabilities. I suppose we get the Ferrari, not the Lamborghini, if you wish. A lot of cost goes into stuff you may not need (but may want just as much as you want an iPad you probably don't need).

    Second, there is significant markup when you buy retail - because you cannot just buy the aid, you also buy the service to have the aid fitted to you. That cost is never broken out, but you would be surprised how much your audiologist might charge you there. Definitely an eye opener. Seems a bit like a cartel, really.

    Third, I will give hearing aid companies that they (at least some of them) do a lot of R&D. As I said, we need to get cutting edge aids, and so far I have seen significant improvements over the years. Now that may change (soon??), thoguh I have to say there is still plenty to be done to make BTE aids better performing. Same goes for convenience, but I do not want to pay that price.

    Fourth, there seems to be an uptick in insurance companies to pay for aids (ours has not in the past). At least for children and young adults I think it is flat out a crime not to pay for aids.

    Fifth: If you really want to be upset you should ask what the production cost of those aids is, and what the resulting markup is. Would want you to become a maker of BTE aids in an instant. But, fo course, that is where capitalism sort of fails: this is a very high entry market. To play, you need to invest a lot of money and a lot of time. And once you made it, you can fleece (ahem, charge) your customers accordingly.

    So, are they too expensive? A lot of them are, but if you are smart about it, you can save thousands of dollars or euros (the story is identical in Europe) and still get the aid you want with full warranty. BTW, I heard they are (much) cheaper in Asia.

    I do agree,however, in that I wonder whether the "digital gains" are now starting to peter off, and the main advances will be in software only. Well, I suppose I will find out again next year ...

    --
    Do your own thing. And overdo it!
    1. Re:Let's give them some serious thought ... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the digital gains haven't nearly topped out, but that the additional gains will only benefit those with worse hearing. Think "cochlear implant" and imagine it being equivalent (or superior?) to the original. This will require direct nerve connections, very finely and carefully attached. So it won't be something that you consider removing. This means that it will need to be able to derive energy from body movements. (Work is being done in the labs, but I'd be surprised if it shows up in this decade, or in the early part of the next. And show up doesn't mean "available for general use", it means "first stage field tests".)

      OTOH, "All I know is what I read in the papers", and I'm relying on popular science articles.

      So. There's clearly a limit to how much improvement you can get by stimulating the ear drum. Or the oval window. So those approaches have clear limits. In fact, even the main audio nerve sometimes is damaged, so one might need to go even higher (forget what that's called). So expect to hit limits this decade that take awhile to overcome. But not hard limits.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  60. It has to do with volume (aren't I punny?) by Relayman · · Score: 1

    The reason hearing aids are so high priced is because there isn't much volume (unit sales volume). Sell as many of them as you sell iPads and you'll see the price come way down. I'll bet total sales of each model of hearing aid is fewer than 10,000 units. When GM sells only 10,000 cars of a model in a year, they look to discontinue it. You have to really mark the cost up to cover research and development, tooling costs and the overhead of the office where the guy checks how much correction you need.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    1. Re:It has to do with volume (aren't I punny?) by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You have to really mark the cost up to cover research and development, tooling costs and the overhead of the office where the guy checks how much correction you need.

      You charge for the service of 'checking how much correction' the person needs.

      If the sales are so low, that would make the market ripe for consolidation with other device makers. It's not as if there is much R and D and tooling costs to develop such a simple product, however, seeing as hearing aids have been around so long.

      Hearing aids are also not as complicated as cars. Cars are vastly more complicated, have numerous elaborate mechnical, electronic, software systems, and vastly more materials and investment involved to engineer and construct one.

      Hearing aids on the other hand are on an order of complexity similar to common earbuds.

      $500 or so per unit would be understandable, given the low volume. $8,000 is insane.

    2. Re:It has to do with volume (aren't I punny?) by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Um. only for truly cheap analog crap hearing aids. You might want to do some market research. I've been working on vehicles of all kinds for 25 years, and I consider them to be simple compared to my hearing aids.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:It has to do with volume (aren't I punny?) by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where many of the expensive, high-quality hearing aids are custom fit and hand manufactured.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  61. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 0

    An education in medicine isn't cheap. Nor is running an operation. If it can be done cheaper, someone will find a way. There are enough doctors out there that collusion is impossible.

    It's amazing how you free market fanatics manage to cling to your faith-based beliefs in the face of all the real-world situations that conclusively disprove them.

  62. Eh...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak up, sonny!

  63. Re:In memory of 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Democracy is not coming to America.

    She was rapescanned, gropped, patted down, cavity searched and still considered a Potential Threat by DHS at Immigration check point and was sent back with a warning of soot at sight if she ever tried to set her foot in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

  64. Go to a manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    americahears.com. I bought a pair about 3 years ago, it was about $2000 for a decent pair of digital CIC aids, vs $5000 or more going though a reseller with added overhead.

  65. or, more likely: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    give me crack and anal sex.
    take the only tree that's left,
    and stuff it up the hole
    in your culture.

    give me back the Berlin Wall
    give me Stalin and St Paul
    i've seen the future, brother:
    it is murder.

  66. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by swalve · · Score: 1

    You really think the doctor is getting that $1900 gross profit. Feh. That goes to the actual middlemen, the insurance companies and the medical supply houses. And most of that goes to the lawyers.

  67. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

    No, most of it goes to the executives. Check the compensation disclosed in the medical sector and compare to net profits of the relevant corporations.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  68. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by AvitarX · · Score: 2

    An education in medicine is overpriced because existing doctors control how many stutends a meed school is allowed to take.

    It's artificially restrected even though the us has less doctors per capita than any developed nation. I'm curious what the hear aid price is in say canada or france.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  69. Generics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know they can't be quite the same, but you can find a large selection online for under $50 shipped.

    http://s.dealextreme.com/search/hearing+aid

  70. Same goes for eye glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eye glasses doesn't really cost 300-400 to make

    1. Re:Same goes for eye glasses by jone1941 · · Score: 1

      Which is why you can buy a pair of cheap glasses from lens crafters for FAR less than that. In fact glasses are like any other fashion accessory, the consumer pays more for the name, the perceived style/value and modest exclusivity. You couldn't be more off the mark in your comparison.

      If anything you could compare hearing aids to something like excessively expensive audiophile stereo equipment. I'm sure that there are advances made through R&D but the real question is: Is the current march of progress worth continuing? Would the consumer benefit more from slightly better technology or significantly lower costs? If these manufacturers significantly cut their R&D operations or if a start-up business was able to license last year's tech like a "generic" the prices could drop significantly. Ultimately the cost comes down to recouping / funding future R&D, not the actual manufacturing and material costs. There is plenty of room for prices to go down if the improvements made year over year are not worth paying for.

      --
      Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
  71. $13.27 on Dealextreme by citizenr · · Score: 1
    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  72. Lee Majors hearing aid. by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

    What about the bionic hearing aid that Lee Majors is selling on TV.

    https://www.hearingaidtv.com/

    I have no idea how well it works, but $15 is a far cry from $4000

    1. Re:Lee Majors hearing aid. by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      They're a joke. They aren't likely to be of use to anyone who actually needs a hearing aid. They might help people who have a touch of hearing loss, the sort of people whom a trained audiologist would not recommend buy a hearing aid because their loss is so mild.

  73. you are a ....... by decora · · Score: 2

    uhm.

    how shall i say this politely.

    you are a victim of an educational system that has not allowed you to discover the basic, fundamental truths of the world you live in.

  74. then there is that whole 'science' thing by decora · · Score: 1

    before spouting off you 'suspect' and 'guess', how about gathering some evidence?

  75. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Eh? Confound it! Dang whippersnappers..!

  76. Australia taking the lead on consumer hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like this crowd: Australia Hears has taken up the challenge.
    Apart from being affordable, the units are also end user programmable with an optional programmer.

  77. OHAPC - On Hearing Aid Per Child? by fygment · · Score: 1

    Will it take a concerted effort on the part of someone to force the industry to bring down prices eg. One Laptop per Child project?

    Could anyone explain why in this day and age of awesome signal processing, hearing aids are still crap? My dad has a pair and they still feedback and are virtually useless in even a lightly crowded room of conversing people.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  78. like... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    ignorant baggers who are actually dumb enough to believe that capitalism makes everything cheaper? Their stupidity ir responsible for most of the damage that we need to repair right now.

  79. Lack of competition by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Hearing aids are a "medical device" and for most patients are paid for, or at least partially paid for, by insurance. As long as a person only has to pay a "$20 co-pay" or similar price that does not reflect the actual market cost of the device, the price will remain inflated.

    1. Re:Lack of competition by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      1. plenty of competition, there are quite a few hearing aid manufacturers and a veritable legion of audiologists, most of whom work with multiple venders.

      2. insurance seldom covers hearing aids, even the big group plans have in their fine print language that excludes them from covering hearing aids except in unusual situations.

  80. From My Own Experience... by cc.kynv · · Score: 1

    ... hearing aides are pretty damn expensive, and they were 6 years ago, too. I had to start wearing hearing aides in the 6th grade, due to some medical issues affecting my hearing, and they cost around $3,500. The audiologists predicted at that time that I would need to get a new pair around the time I turn 19, and that's not far off as I'm a senior in high school now. I'm really afraid of the price tag when I do have to get new ones.

  81. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bgalbrecht · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the medical supply houses, but according to finance.yahoo.com, for profit healthcare plans (i.e. the insurance companies) have an average profit margin of 4.5% compared to average profit margin of 13.2% for medical device suppliers. When the insurance company's contract requires the doctor to write down 30% - 50% of the listed fee, it's not turning into profit for the insurance company, it's a discount that is passed on to the insured in lower premiums.

  82. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    The problem is that a hearing aid is technically a durable medical device.

    That is exactly the problem. Because it is a "medical device" it is subject to a bunch of regulations. One of the things is that the company that manufactures it must meet various FDA regulations for the manufacture of a medical device. Then you have the various state regulations. The overall effect of these regulations is to limit competition.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  83. nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not out of step with just about any service or product in the health care industry. Enjoy your american flavor of capitalism.

  84. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Medicare pays for hearing aids.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  85. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Although it's called "healthcare reform", it's only reform in the sense that the form is new. It is not reform in the sense of improvement, it's naked tyranny.

    True healthcare improvement would involve things like closing the FDA, ending licensure laws, prohibiting the extension or renewal of drug patents, and removing state restrictions on insurance companies.

    A hearing aid is simpler than a radio, and radios can be had for $5 at Walmart. Hearing aids should be even cheaper.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  86. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need in a hearing aid is a remotely programmable signal pickup, amplifier and speaker, with digital signal processor attached that you could program to an individuals needs (don't amplify everything, just the frequencies that are weak). If only there were advances in digital signal processors, or miniatureization of electronics in the last 20 years, we would be able to give people a solution. ...Oh wait.... In truth, a shrunk-down version of a pc sound card would work perfectly, and should cost about $180. With 100% markup, $360 (or that will include the technicians testing and programming of the new unit). Anything more than that, and you are being ripped off.

  87. And by comparison? by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Er, price bubble? How much was most of the plastic surgery done today compared to years ago?

    The cost of a doctorate degree in 1980 vs. now?

    Insurance costs? (don't even get me started on the fucking lawyers, but their costs too)

    It's called inflation with a healthy dose of capitalism for dessert. You either pay it, or you don't. Hear me? Are you listening? Because those things hanging off your head should be priceless to the average person. Here's a thought that's sickening. Look at the superficial bitch who just had to sport at least a 3-carat rock to be worthy of marrying, which is also commonly referred to as "2/3 months salary" in diamond marketing campaigns. A sparkly rock, or someones ability to hear. Hmmm...Which one should we be bitching about?

  88. Custom Canal Phones by evilned · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine that the labor costs even remotely justify even the cash price for these. I just got custom remolding for some canalphones for around $200 dollars. And I know damned well there isn't more than $500 worth of electronics in most hearing aids.

    --

    "My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett

  89. Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by wangmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to work for a hearing aid company in IT.
    The most expensive programmable digital hearing aid with all the options topped out at around $1200. That's the cost to the hearing care professional. So yeah, that hearing aid would turn around and sell for at least 3 to 4 times that.

    Also, the company had an extended warranty that we sold to the hearing care professional. Most of them don't turn around and sell that to the customer. Instead, they pay for it themselves and then when a customer brings a hearing aid back they sent it to us for free to fix and they charged the customer for it. It seemed like quite a nice racket. Especially when you consider they also charge for the hearing checkup, fitting, and all of that other usual crap above and beyond what the hearing aid itself cost.

    I'm not sure what the rest of the medical device industry looks like, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was fairly similar. I know the markup on my glasses frames is pretty crazy.

    1. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cool thing with prescription glasses/frames is you can get them dirt cheap from overseas and with almost-as-good (and definiately "good enough") quality. Hopefully that can also be the case with other devices soon. Only the earmolds would have to be done locally I guess.

    2. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      planes don't buy themselves

    3. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      In my area, the initial consultation and hearing test are free, as are adjustments for a period (3 months?) after the aids are installed. One local place advertises free batteries for life (I'm told it's a scam, but I forget why). The Ontario government health plan also pays $500/ear every 3 years, if I remember correctly. Not enough to cover expensive aids, but much/most of the cost of cheaper ones.

    4. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do work as medical staff (not in USA), and believe me, if something is going to be offered to institution that works within healthcare system, it is going to be charged at least 3x, usually 6-10x than average price that can be seen on the internet or in the shop.

      For example, cheap, low-quality, $30 chair is usually offered and sold at $100, and more.
      A single CD/DVD burner (identical to one that can be bought in any store, but referedd as "for medical device") is sold to hospitals for about $1000. Keep in mind that some institutions do not have maintenence contracts for all equipment.

      That's how it works, and please don't give me the "liability" statements, I have never seen or heard that there were any liability claims for hospital chairs, CD burner, network router, office desk, tray or a lamp (not USA, remember).

    5. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always try Zenni Optical http://www.zennioptical.com/ I buy from them when I need spare glasses.

    6. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European hearing aid BTE top of the line pricing (each), prices in AUD:
      Price for manufacture $30
      Cost price to clinic $2950
      Sale price to private client $6250

      In the last two years, I have seen two sets of hearing aids come out. They were identical in every aspect except for the look of the outer casing. The newer pair cost $1500 more each (I need not remind you all that the australian dollar has gone from 0.86 USD to 1.06 USD, so its actually an even higher relative pricehike). The Hearing Aid industry isn't really a medical industry; it behaves exactly like every other retail operation.

      In before "the medical industry is a retail operation too - BIG PHARMA MADE H1N1" posts

    7. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the rest of the medical device industry looks like, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was fairly similar. I know the markup on my glasses frames is pretty crazy.

      Very few businesses are "guaranteed riches in a couple of years". I looked at the glasses thing myself - the frame markup is silly because that's pretty much the only source of income the optician has. Fitting out a shop, paying well-qualified people to look at your eyesight and buying all the equipment that goes with it is absurdly expensive and probably isn't paid for by the cost of your checkup. So you overprice the frames then let the customer think they're getting a bargain when you run a "2-for-1" offer (which is most of the time).

    8. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      It may be difficult to find room in the market and come up with initial capital, but after that initial success I doubt the money is very difficult. "Hard-working" business owners love talking about how much they had to invest, but never mention their embarrassing profits that pay of the investment in a few years.

    9. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warranties/extended warranties are registered against the product not any random buyer.

      That company was maybe committing fraud, but highly scummy super duper scum-baggy

      Think of what would happen if a car dealership did this. They would get to effectively sell each car twice...

      alternatively (and more likely) the company was offering a service to its clients to send away defective aids, and then do a checkup with the client to ensure that the received aids are fitted property and function correctly. this is not scummy at all and in-fact represents good value to prospective clients. no hassles and fewer locations for the primary manufacturer to contact and address issues, economy of scale with shipping several hearing aids in one package each week as opposed to each being individually couriered, and more benefits.

      I need more details before I light my pitchfork and storm the gates.

    10. Re:Markup is pretty impressive on these things. by marqs · · Score: 1

      People call me cynical but in my humble opinion I think this has largely to do with the age group and predicament of the buyers.
      If your target group was people aged 25-45 who just wanted to improve their hearing, they would not pay more than say $200-300 for a top-of-the-line unit...
      If your age group is 70+ years of age and not so familiar with the general prices of IC-powerd devices and in dire need of said device to function in a normal way; then you can simply charge them for all their life savings if you want.

  90. $3,000-$5,000? Really? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend and her sister each got a pair for about $1800 each. Sure, the batteries might die in a week or 2 depending on how much she uses them, but they arent all that expensive. But, I can definitely tell you that, to my girlfirend, they are well worth the cost. And she doesn't even have full hearing loss.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:$3,000-$5,000? Really? by rcpitt · · Score: 1
      love dollar-store batteries :)

      you get 90% of the life (some are 100% but some are 50%) for 25% of the price

      --
      Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
      and didn't get it
  91. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    Remind me, which countries are scared shitless about current shortages of trained doctors and nurses? It's sure not the US. Why? Because in the US we're willing to pay them for their decade of intense studying and their specialized skill set, where other countries think that they should spend a decade of their life killing themselves in school for the same pay as the guy who went to a two year vocational school and spent half his time drunk with friends.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  92. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    Wrong. An education in medicine costs a lot because there are very few people in the country with the necessary skills to teach medicine. Doctors only comprise about 0.3% of the US population, and even if every one of them taught, there would still be a scarcity of resources.

    But I'd guess you'd rather go with the USSR model and have unqualified people teaching others to be unqualified doctors who'll then cause large amounts of damage due to their incompetence just to get a "cheap" doctor.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  93. Hearing Aids are Super High-Tech Technology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think many of the people here really appreciate the technology that goes into a hearing aid. Obviously, there are the whole issues of miniaturization and battery life. That isn't the hard part....

    I used to know someone who worked on hearing aids. He explained to me how advanced the filtering technology is to be able to amplify the sounds that we want to hear and to exclude those that we do not. For a deaf person in a noisy restaurant, simply amplifying all the sounds will amplify glasses clinking, utensils on plates, etc. equally as much as the discussion you are having with the person across the table. This results in a jumble of noise. Our brains are able to do this automagically. A computer has a hard time doing this.

    So, how advanced was my friend's filtering technolgy that he integrated into hearing aids? It is hard to say. However, I do know what his previous job was and how much he knows about filtering. He designed the filtering systems for the sonar and listening station/s for the Navy's Trident submarines. He also held the highest level security clearance issued to a civilian.

    Finally, for those who note that in countries with socialized medicine, they do not have to pay much for hearing aids, I must point out that they have actually paid more. With higher tax rates than in the United States it is likely they have paid more over time. The difference is that in the U.S., people are able to keep more of their money and odds are, the money that would in a country with socialized medicine be spent on a hearing aid, went to the person's family, car, house, been spent for a vacation, or a whole host of other options.

    -Art

    1. Re:Hearing Aids are Super High-Tech Technology.... by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

      Finally, for those who note that in countries with socialized medicine, they do not have to pay much for hearing aids, I must point out that they have actually paid more. With higher tax rates than in the United States it is likely they have paid more over time. The difference is that in the U.S., people are able to keep more of their money and odds are, the money that would in a country with socialized medicine be spent on a hearing aid, went to the person's family, car, house, been spent for a vacation, or a whole host of other options.

      -Art

      The facts take issue with your assertions. The following is lifted straight from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States with sources in support:

      • In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724

        A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system

        However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.[11] In 2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP was spent on health care.[5]

      So Americans pay more for less care than socialized countries do. The reason is plain to see. There is no free market in health insurance. You only find out it is any good if youre sick, and then you cannot change. The insurance companies self interest is in higher medical costs, because they set their rates by the costs they are under-writing. The HMO alternative incentivises providing no care, since reducing costs improves profitability. And then Americans bring out the rationing bogey man, which is precisely equivalent to an HMO. At Its base, there is no free market method that I have heard of that aligns the financial interest of the health provider with getting someone health care for the least possible cost. There is no cost discipline that comes into the story without it coming into conflict with the patients' interest.

      so profit-driven health care costs more, provides less, and places the US at a disadvantage. You know why Canadian auto workers cost less than Americans even when the currencies are at par? Thats right, add up the numbers and you see an employee in Canada costs on the order of 5,000 $ less per year, because non-profit health care costs less.

      This peculiarly American all guvimint bad, all private sector good mentality is tantamount to a religious belief. It's ok, I dont expect your truthiness to get the least flustered when face with mere facts.

  94. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    This is why for profit medicare sucks.

    I dunno, that's the model that's followed in veterinary medicine and their prices are lower, their equipment up to date and the waits are shorter than most human-care systems.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  95. Not the Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The equipment is cheap, just look at dealextreme.

    It's the restricted distribution that's the problem. The unnecessary licensing acts to limit supply and drive up costs.

  96. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    isn't wanting something cheaper just as greedy as wanting something more expensive?

    If I demand a $5 hearing aid how is that less greedy than charging $5k? Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  97. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

    Educating people is an exponential growth situation, with every successful teacher producing many more potential teachers. Rampant numbers of unqualified teachers and students are a potential short term problem if the field is very new, but modern medicine is hundreds of years old.

    The only possible limitations are a shortage of students, or artificial controls on the growth of the field.

  98. Typical by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    This is very typical of any and all medical devices. So long as Medicare and private insurers are willing to pay the increased costs they will keep raising them. It's all about the money, not helping the sick.

  99. Why Do Prices Keep Inflating? by nick_davison · · Score: 1

    in the last decade the price of an average Behind the Ear hearing aid has more than doubled.

    A decade ago, a loaf of white bread cost about $0.50, now it costs about $3.00.

    A decade ago, a tank of gas cost me $10, now it costs over $40.

    I think we've stumbled on to a pattern. Clearly the Illuminati are manipulating bread, gas and hearing aids. If only there was some term for this pattern of "inflating" prices.

    1. Re:Why Do Prices Keep Inflating? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You're comparing the wrong things. Electronics have come down in price markedly.

      A decade ago, a 1GB mp3 player cost several hundred dollars, and was heavy, bulky, and low on features. Now, a 1GB mp3 player is under $20. You can pick from dozens of models, from a thumb drive sized model to ones with video screens.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  100. Recent ad for $500 hearing aid by rcpitt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My wife has a hearing aid - so I'm sensitive to this.

    When she got it, we were fairly well off - just sold a company and to be frank, I didn't notice how much it cost.

    recent problems with it put me on the front lines - and getting a bill for $800 just to fix is gave me a lot of angst. I have to say I railed at the person on the front counter quite a bit considering I know a lot about analog, digital, integrated circuits, and such - and basically told her that IMHO the components she was quoting as retail in the $3000 range were worth about $10 or less.

    Then she loaned us an "over the ear" unit while the in-the-ear one was out for repair - and when I went to give it back, said "keep it" - so confirming that the actual hardware cost is trivial (unit is about 3 times the size of the current one but otherwise similar capabilities - and given the progress in IC units, represents maybe 3 years' progress)

    So... when I heard an ad on the radio last week for an in-ear hearing aid for $500, I figured "about time" and so the poster is correct - there is a revolution coming.

    Question is - what patents will be held over the heads of those trying to break this cartel - because it truly must be a cartel.

    Note that I can now (despite the eye-glass cartel of yesteryear) purchase more than useful eye-glasses in various basic diopters at the local dollar store - to the point where I have enough around the house that I have achieve "maxiumum vapour pressure" of eye-glasses (i.e. there is a pair at hand any time/where I need them)

    richard

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it
  101. The doctor guild [AMA] caused the doctor shortage by nido · · Score: 1

    A long time ago members of the American Medical Association wrung their hands about how many doctors there were, and how doctors like them were losing face because competing philosophies didn't kill their patients nearly as often. Bloodletting and Quicksilver (mercury) were the tools of their trade, and anyone who suggested otherwise was a fool.

    So, like any competent guild, they started lobbying the legislatures to make competing medical philosophies unable to practice medicine without a "license" from the State.

    By the early 1900's, the AMA began the process of weeding out "substandard" medical colleges... But they couldn't do it on their own, so the Carnegie Foundation (which was a proxy for the drug trusts) stepped in to help.

    Flexner Report --> closing of 1/2 the country's medical schools --> doctor shortage.

    But I'd guess you'd rather go with the USSR model and have unqualified people teaching others to be unqualified doctors who'll then cause large amounts of damage due to their incompetence just to get a "cheap" doctor.

    Overtraining doctors makes it easy for them to "miss the forest for the trees"... Like my friend's kid, who had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on his case, over a 2-3 year period. Just recently his mom, who's been reading and reading and reading, took initiative to start Vitamin A and Vitamin B12 supplementation. And many of the kid's problems started going away. She's rather pissed that the supposed "experts" couldn't figure it out. :)

    The Carnegie Foundation made sure that doctors trained in their schools use pharmaceuticals as a first resort (high blood pressure medication, for example), instead of something that you might use temporarily while figuring out the specific cause of the undesired condition.

    In the great flu of 1918 (or whenever), conventional doctors turned their hospitals into death wards by suppressing the patient's fever. They didn't even bother to separate flu patients from everyone else.

    Osteopathic hospitals were much more survivable... Osteopaths separated flu patients from everyone else, and allowed the temperature as the body's natural response to the pathogen. And their manual treatments helped too.

    An excellent history of modern medicine is covered in Steinreich's 100 Years of Medical Robbery.

    hth.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  102. Phone app + bluetooth = hearing aid by rcpitt · · Score: 1
    OK - in-the-ear aids are nice - but (and I don't need a hearing aid) I run around with a blue-tooth headset on much of the time (we have hands-free law for driving here in BC) so...

    1 - custom fit? I got 8 different ear moulds for the basic unit - pick one and suffer while my ear adapts

    2 - custom frequency response? - Are you telling me that a 1+ GHz processor can't do the math for umpteen different frequency bands and adapt if/when needed?

    3 - patents? Digital signal processing has been around for a lot more than 20 years - we used to use the Telebit Trailblazer modem (M68K processor and signal processing chip) back in the mid 1980s - and it broke the audio spectrum down into 256 discreet bands at that time!

    So... if you can't afford an in-the-ear unit, someone please do up an ap for the smart phones and bluetooth!

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it
    1. Re:Phone app + bluetooth = hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure you don't want discreet audio... Especially for hearing aids!

    2. Re:Phone app + bluetooth = hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bluetooth isn't suitable for hearing aids. Or at least not for binaural hearing aids. It has too much latency, and destroys the phase relationships that enable you to discern things like *direction*. That's why hearing aids do very, very little in the way of digital signal processing, and are still very reliant upon high-end analog signal processing -- latency. Digital filtering is dead easy and practically free... as long as you don't have to do it in realtime. Make realtime sub-millisecond latency an absolute, non-negotiable requirement, and just about everything that makes modern consumer electronics cheap goes flying out the window.

      That doesn't mean they're genuinely worth $10,000... but it definitely explains why they SHOULD cost around a kilobuck or two. They're not mass-market consumer items by any means.... but there's still plenty of room for lower prices.

      Actually, there's another problem with hearing aids -- ironically, the overwhelming majority of them (at least, in America) have shit audio fidelity. There's genuinely an attitude throughout the American hearing aid industry that the users are mostly deaf, so high audio fidelity doesn't matter anyway. Actually, it does matter. Even profoundly deaf users (who still have enough residual hearing to meaningfully benefit from a hearing aid) can tell the difference between one with good audio fidelity and one that has a poor response curve.

      Also, the best hearing aids in general are "behind the ear" hearing aids. You'll almost never find a deaf guy under the age of 40 with an intracanal hearing aid, precisely because they compromise sound quality for aesthetics, have poor adjustability, and just plain aren't as useful as behind the ear hearing aids.

    3. Re:Phone app + bluetooth = hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, on my smart phone (N900), the app's already written -- it's called sox, and it's the same one on your *n*x desktop -- and combined with some alsa fooery to use the phone's mic, even though a Bt headset is connected, it makes a dandy stethoscope. No reason you couldn't make it happen as a hearing aid...

    4. Re:Phone app + bluetooth = hearing aid by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      First, in the ear hearing aids are the cheap ones, generally speaking. the real expensive ones are generally the over-the-ear ones.

      Second, your "custom fit" solution is nowhere near custom enough. someone with a "mildly profound" hear loss will have the sound jacked up so high that the sound bleeding out of their ear canal can potentially cause feedback with the microphone. Moreover, the ear mold is one of the least expensive parts of the hearing aid. And, if you're really hard up, you can find similar services from shops that make custom ear molds for audio applications or ear plugs.

      Third, your smartphone would be luck to run all day acting as a hearing aid and not run out of juice. Hearing aid batteries tend to last for weeks at a time.

      Fourth, your solution is a great leap backwards. You lose stereo inputs (and, consequently, an sense of direction of sound sources) and have to wear a clunky box around your neck or some other prominent position like people back in the fifties and sixties.

      Fifth, the software is more difficult than you might think. It's not just a DSP amplification problem. It's that and a noise cancellation problem and having a ceiling on the amplification so that you don't further destroy a person's hearing. That last part might get any potential app maker in court.

      Sixth, I would surprised if many smartphones (a) offered enough amplification or (b) if they did offer enough amplification, to not have a cap on how much they can amplify to shield the manufacturer from lawsuits.

      Criticism aside, I think it shows a healthy DIY attitude and, if more people were willing to do this sort of thing, prices in general might be lower because people would have serious alternatives.

    5. Re:Phone app + bluetooth = hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like this idea however a number of points:

      1) A standard bluetooth headset likely does not have a strong enough amplifier for a deaf or hard of hearing person.

      2) Writing an app also becomes a question of liability.

      By definition a hearing aid must put out sound levels that are listenable by a deaf or hard of hearing person. However paradoxically, sound produced at these levels can also damage hearing for someone who has "normal" hearing. So I can see you being sued for creating an app that has "caused damage to someones hearing" even thought it was written for deaf and hard of hearing people.

      There is reason why all ipods, and other such music devices come with a warning that using such devices at unsafe listening levels can cause permanent hearing loss.

      Cheers

  103. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by russ_allegro · · Score: 1

    Interesting. I wanted to go see a doctor to make sure my immunizations were up to date. I called about 10 offices and no one could see me within the next three months. Thats here in the midwest.

  104. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, if in fact hearing aids are overpriced, it's only because of interference in the market by the government, making it more difficult for people to get into the market with regulations.

  105. Rugged Technology by nanospook · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, they have to last for 4-6 years through daily use, sweating, banging, being dropped, maybe going through the washer (yes I'm guilty! That bartender special in New Orleans really fscked me up) and do all of this without being repaired. Technology has to be researched and developed. Also, the price includes the use of the audiologist's time and expertist often up to a year. Still, they are expensive and you either have them or you don't. I've been severely hearing impaired all of my life. I have a bag of old hearing aids. Sometimes I paid for them, sometimes I had to get financial help. I think about the expense of them and the ding they put into my retirement. Still, I'm grateful I have them. I would be pretty much deaf without them.

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  106. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

    The real driving factor is that the prices are set high and then insurance companies bargain them down somewhat, but not nearly low enough. I had a $200,000 hospital visit to ER and ICU, and the insurance company leveled that down to $48,000 by telling the hospital f$^*- no. Hearing aids should be far less expensive but the American medical $y$tem is quite happy to jack them up.

  107. Patent minefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As someone who looked into making a novel hearing aid system, I'd say prices are driven by an absolute minefield of patents.

  108. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by margeman2k3 · · Score: 1

    It's different because of the motivation.
    There's a very slight and subtle difference between "This (necessary item) should cost customers more so I can buy a second Ferrari" and "This (necessary item) should cost me less so I can make my mortgage payment this month".

    Am I greedy for wishing that my (required) textbooks cost me less than $1200 a year?

  109. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    come to the south east, there are more doctors than mc donalds

  110. Cue the free market parrot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    blah blah blah free markets blah blah Milton Freidman! Ayn Rand!! Freedom!

  111. Starkey Hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine was just telling me about Bill Austin's foundation:
    http://www.starkeyhearingfoundation.org/
    They have a goal of giving 500000 hearing aids each year to people who can't afford them. Beyond that, they are state of the art hearing aids. My friend's sister was told that she had to have invasive surgery, she would never hear the same again, and she would only recover about 30% of her hearing. Mr Austin told her to come up to Minneapolis, and two days later she was hearing as well as she ever had.

  112. No price bubble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just hugely extreme price gouging!! These devices should cost no more than $150.00 a pair!!!

    My name is Nonya F. Biznes
    Email: nonya@nonya.org
    Address: 123 Nostreet
    Notown, FU 77342-090

  113. What i the "best they can at their job" mean by mbkennel · · Score: 2

    What is the "best they can at their job" mean for an insurance company?

    It means achieving excellence in raising prices and not paying claims while simultaneously limiting quantified regulatory and legal liability to an acceptable fraction of revenue.

    I think US health insurance companies are very good at their jobs.

  114. This Hearing Aid Bubble doesn't exist... somewhat. by Tynin · · Score: 1

    One thing you can do, if you have hearing loss (I have ~90% hearing lose in my left ear, yay genetics!)... and perhaps this may not apply to everyone owns personal... taste, especially if you have money and other options and don't mind wasting lots of cash. But their is not a Hearing Aid Price Bubble occurring. This is only a problem if you are very squeamish, but a cheaper solution exists.

    If you don't mind looking through the obituaries in your local paper, you can find recently deceased. Give them a couple weeks to get through some of there pain of lose, and then look them up and give them a call. Ask them if their recently deceased was using hearing aids. It seems as people age, many end up needing hearing aids, and more than a few have, REALLY good ones. Explain your own ear issues to them, and how you wouldn't mind giving them some money for them. The lady I contacted was just going to throw her recently deceased husbands hearing aids away, not knowing what else to do with them. Being near deaf in my left ear (never having past a hearing test in that ear), it was a wonderful thing to find.

  115. And some are very old models? by antdude · · Score: 1

    My Oticon 380P bone conduction hearing aids costed about $1K and the funny thing is that it is the latest analog model that came out in 1994. Oticon stopped researching and making better ones because they went digital. If I want digital models, then I would have to surgeries due to implants. Frak that. I prefer things to be external, so I can take it off to enjoy being mostly quietness and avoid technical internal problems. Also, being able to cut down loud audio like in loud theaters, concerts, games, parties, fire alarms, etc.!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  116. Inexpensive hearing aids from China by blanchae · · Score: 1

    It's all a scam. Just search for Hearing Aids in ebay and you'll many for less than $100 from China and they are just as good as the $3000 scam ones. You can buy a lot of batteries for the difference.

  117. Price of Hearing Aids by Slashdotgirl · · Score: 1

    Consider that a laptop can be brought for under a $1000 dollars or even a very powerful computer for $3000. Then consider the amount of electronics and materials that are contained in both. Then compare these items with a pair of hearing aids. This is not taking into account that hearing aids may have to be individually fitted and those associated costs with doing so. Starting to get the picture? Regardless of what medical system that is being used either social, or capitalism, the price of hearing aids is just not price gouging, it is not just an exorbitant price for them, but just plain EXTORTION.

    Yes, destroy this over inflated bubble once and for all and of course tear it to shreds so that it never grows again.

    Kind regards
    Slashdotgirl

    --
    The more I know, the less I know
  118. the trouble with the term 'bubble' by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    Is that, last I checked, the relevant literature doesn't agree on a definition.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  119. Salesmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computers used to cost $5-$10k a piece, and were sold only by commissioned salespeople who collected big commission cheques. Then a bunch of players got into the market relentlessly driving down the end-user costs, and ultimately, moving to a direct-to-consumer model in many cases (ie: Dell).

    Contrast this with hearing aids, which are sold by commissioned salespeople, out of fancy retail outfits, with home visits for the elderly.

    As techies, we should be asking, "why" we don't have this model for computers. And why we're on a treadmill to hell in terms of lower prices?

    1. Re:Salesmen by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Add to it the fact that many get hearing aids through health insurance or paid by the government (varies by country) and the issue that there's little competition in the area of hearing aid availability.

      Computers and cars - there's a surplus of them, hearing aids not so much.

      And each hearing aid needs to get tuned individually which makes it harder to get into the market.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  120. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by mesterha · · Score: 1

    I dunno, that's the model that's followed in veterinary medicine and their prices are lower, their equipment up to date and the waits are shorter than most human-care systems.

    Call me when you can euthanize grama because her surgery is too expensive.

    --

    Chris Mesterharm
  121. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by toadlife · · Score: 1

    Large portions of the U.S. have doctor and nurse shortages.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  122. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we're "willing to pay" them. We pay twice as much as any other country for healthcare, and we get crappier results than most of them, "doctor shortage" or not. That's a real free market success story.

    Liberty, responsibility and sound economic policy - My ass.

  123. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Actually, if in fact hearing aids are overpriced, it's only because of interference in the market by the government, making it more difficult for people to get into the market with regulations.

    Thanks for proving my point.

  124. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm curious what the hear aid price is in say canada or france."

    They're free, because everybody is insured.

  125. Re:The doctor guild [AMA] caused the doctor shorta by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Osteopathic hospitals were much more survivable..."

    Dr. Bob, is that you?

  126. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

    True healthcare improvement would involve things like closing the FDA

    This makes me curious

    In your opinion, does the FDA serve no purpose (from a patient/consumer point of view) at all? And if it does, what do you suggesting doing with those purposes?

  127. It's the germanium, stupid by radioweather · · Score: 1

    I wear two hearing aids with DSP processors built in. Let me tell you a little bit about why they are so expensive. The largest supplier of hearing aids in the USA is Starkey in Minneapolis. I've been to the factory, and have experienced the process from start to finish courtesy of the president of the company.

    1. Because hearing aids, especially BTE and ITC types use a single cell 1.5 volt battery, which can drop as low as 1.3 volts through its useful operational life, the circuits must be of extremely low power consumption and low voltage. The only chip material that works for this is germanium, which has a diode junction breakdown voltage of ~ 0.3V as opposed to the ubiquitous silicon used in consumer electronics. While germanium was once very common for transistors and some early integrated circuits, it has fallen out of favor in the microelectronics world. There are only a handful of sources and companies now that work with germanium, thus the base price is higher due to this scarcity. You can't just take an off the shelf silicon chip and put it in these aids. Each one is custom designed in germanium.

    2. The process of properly fitting a hearing aid is labor intensive. Custom ear molds must be created from latex impressions, and these need to be fitted for comfort. A small variance or burr can mean the difference between a good fitting mold and one that is painful to wear. Additionally, if the mold doesn't maintain a seal to the inner ear properly the hearing aid will go into oscillatory feedback. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 attempts to get the fitting right.

    3. On the more expensive aids, labor is involved in doing a spectral hearing loss analysis of the user's hearing problem, so that the aid doesn't over-amplify in the wrong frequencies. Just throwing in a simple linear amplifier is destructive to the remaining hearing due to the sound pressure levels involved.

    4. Construction of aids is done by hand by technicians, especially with the popular ITC (in the canal) aids. At the Starkey company, a technician is assigned to create the aid from the ear mold, fit the chips and microphone/receiver and battery compartment, and connect it all with 32 gauge wire and make sure it all fits in the ear mold. This can be a real challenge, because human ear canals aren't often straight, but bend and change diameter. Imaging a room with a hundred technicians sitting at microscopes assembling these. Each is a custom job. There's no mass production possible and thus none of the savings from it.

    5. After the aid is created, then there's the fitting. This process is also hands on. Getting the volume and the audio spectrum match right is a challenge, and audiologists have to have chip programming systems onsite to make such adjustments withing the limits of the aid. Sometimes aids are rejected because the user isn't comfortable with the fitting, and then the aids go back to the factory for either a new ear mold, new electronics, or both.

    6. There's a lot of loss in the hearing aid business. Patients don't often adapt well, especially older people. There may be two or three attempts at fitting before a success or rejection. Patients only pay when the fitting is successful. If it is not, the company eats the effort and the cost of labor and materials. Imagine making PC's by hand, sending them out to users, and then having them come back to have different cases or motherboards or drives fitted two or three times, and software adjusted until the customer is happy with it. Imagine 4 out of 10 PC's coming back permanently after trial and error with a customer.

    7. Early hearing aids weren't anything but simple amplifiers. Even until the mid 90's there was very little spectral customization. Now many aids are getting features like frequency equalizers and DSP noise reductions that we take for granted in even the cheapest silicon based consumer electronics. Hence, prics has increased with complexity, but there's still the high cost of custom special chips, and lots of labor.

    1. Re:It's the germanium, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclosure: I wear a digital hearing aid. It is an Oticon Chili SP7 which I recently paid $1800 for. I am classified as severely to profoundly deaf. I have worn hearing aids all my life.

      For $1800 you can buy a car, a stereo, a laptop, a high end smart phone.

      The fact that the current HA manufacturing process is labor intensive, requires many manual fitting steps, uses out of date manufacturing technologies is not valid justification for the high costs of hearing aids.

      Personally I liked my old analog hearing aids with 3 band (lo med and high) adjustment. These cost $200-$300 back in the 1970s. With my analog hearing aid I could actually play my guitar without some hardware feedback circuit making it sound like some sort of weird star trek ships warble.

      My feeling is that Hearing Aid engineers get real excited about all the COOL things they can do with their new DSP toys and forget that many people would be happy paying $200-$300 dollars for an aid that gives them 80% of what they need instead having to pay $1800 to $3000 for a fancy gizmo bluetooth enabled, automatic sensing, self adjusting hearing aid with 3 different presets for "restaurant, opera and watching TV".

  128. It's not that simple... by blinking_at · · Score: 1

    Hearing loss typically isn't uniform for all frequencies -- there can be ranges where you hear quite well, and other ranges where you can't detect anything. A good hearing aid doesn't amplify everything uniformly -- if it did, it would probably contribute to more hearing loss. Instead, they transfer information on the dead frequencies to bands where you hear better, and thus don't have to amplify very much. Of course, such hearing aids must be tuned to your exact pattern of loss, which requires a trained audiologist. Moreover, as another poster pointed out, they can adjust to the characteristics of the external noise, and they are highly miniaturized.

    So that they should be expensive than mere amplifiers is not at all surprising.

  129. Closed Shop by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

    In my country, the inflated price pays for the 'free consultations' with 'qualified audiologists' (who do indeed have families who must eat, and who must expect many 'free' visits from grumbling oldies in their high-overhead retail stores). Good luck if you buy a used appliance (lots of users die soon): no-one will re-tune it to your frequencies (or to default), no-one will mould an earbud for your own ear. A good direct-sell Swiss product was forced off the market because it challenged the legally-backed scam.

  130. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    If by "crappier results" you mean "the most advanced medicines and treatments" and "thousands of people fly to the US for surgeries that they can't get in their 'superior' country with government run health care", then sure - you're right.

    Not only are those other countries medical systems going broke (the US is not, medicaid and medicare are due to promising people the world and realizing that they can't jack taxes enough to cover it) because they don't pay the full bill and just tack it on to the national debt - but they freeload by using medicines and techniques discovered by US companies, with several of those countries ignoring patent laws and flat out stealing the formulas for those medicines.

    But go ahead - fuck doctors and the people researching ways to treat cancer and other diseases in the ass and see how fast they say "Fuck you asshole, you can go die - we quit". Just because you're a greedy little shit who thinks that someone who spent a decade of their life becoming an expert should provide you with everything you want for little to no cost doesn't make them "bad" - it just makes you an ass who, if it wasn't for the Hippocratic oath they take, they'd toss out on your ass to die a painful death.

    Jesus christ, take some damn responsibility for yourself and realize that the world doesn't exist to serve your whims. If you want to live in a collapsing society where you don't have to be responsible for yourself, there's plenty of countries in Europe you could move to (well, except you can't because while they yell that the US should welcome illegals with open arms, they heavily restrict immigration to the EU).

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  131. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding, right? Regulations are NOT part of free market capitalism.

  132. I did a U.N study on technologies for specialneeds by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    And EVERYTHING was way overpriced. The excuse was always the same, small market.

    Almost none of the devices were open source, and therefore had VERY limited support for languages. If you don't use one of the top 4 languages you are SOL.

    The assumption is that most of the cost is absorbed by the state, and since technologies like this are increadibly vital people will want to spend a lot of money on them (think designer spectacle frames).

    By far the sickest thing I found was a man named Kurzweil. His products are INCREDIBLY over priced, and these are products for the blind or with other disabilities. Where do these profits go? He spends millions and millions of dollars trying to extend his own life.

    What a sick bastard.

  133. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

    You do realize that things aren't free just because *you* don't pay for them, right?

  134. This is basic economics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that there is so many more devices available, yet the market really isn't increasing so the unit costs increase significantly. Unless the variety of units decrease, the number of companies selling them decreases, or a very large number of people all of a sudden start going deaf, then the economics is going to suggest that the prices will remain high.

  135. The way they're marketed and sold... by unitron · · Score: 1

    ...has always made me uncomfortable. I always get the feeling that the people and companies involved were either selling aluminum siding instead last month or will be next month.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  136. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you trying to say? An education in medicine is cheap? And so is running an operation? If it can be done cheaper, nobody ever will find a way? There aren't enough doctors out there so collusion is really impossible?

  137. Hearing aids and other devices by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    In America, health care costs so much because it can. It has a (seemingly) bottomless pit to tap from with the insurance companies, and now it's been mandated by the Gubbermint. People-- the consumers of health care-- are not the people who pay. Nameless and faceless and 'inexhaustible' companies pay for health care by the billion. And if they can't afford it the government's good for a trillion or two of Chinese debt. This isn't rocket science people. Market economics. What if the sellers of health care had to bear real, un-artificially-altered market pressures? But I've been smoking again....

  138. cheaper in Europe by jwijnands · · Score: 1

    Just did a quick check, a top of the range hearing aid will set you back about 2500 euros.

  139. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    You should be upset that your teachers are willing to cater to the dirty tactics of the publishing industry. You're not their real customer, after all...

    On the flip side of the coin, there are lots of people out there who can't "make [their] mortgage payment" even if they aren't being gouged because they haven't learned to manage their money. Wanting something to be cheaper so they can get by is a frequent invalid excuse of the spendthrift.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  140. Well, with the dollar price by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    2500 euro's is about 4000 dollars... 4500 dollars...5000 dollars...5500 dollars... 6000 dollars.

    Of course that EU price includes a high VAT and better consumer protection so that also helps explains the lower price... eh what?

    If you really want to upset the Americans, mention how socialized obama care means that the standard hearing aids are free and if you want a top of the range one you just pay a max of 500 euro's for it, the base price being covered by your insurance.

    America, the land of the silly.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  141. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off you fucking arsehole, that's the most stupid evil crap I've heard since I read the telecoms merger summary.

  142. Design flaw: hearing aids must be hidden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The major design flaw with hearing aids is that they are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. In the Olden Days, folks denied having hearing loss and wanted to hide it as much as possible. Also, wearing technology branded you as weird... so, the industry answered this by coming up with the current design.

    For me, this is ridiculous. I don't care that people know my hearing is bad. I just want to be able to use tech well to deal with it- but I have to fork over $$$ because previous generations demanded itsy-bitsy "hidden" hearing aids.

    Smartphone+bluetooth has the potential to be very disruptive here.

  143. Price of hearing aids in UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did a quick search of hearing aids, and found a range from £490 ($780) for a basic model, up to about £1800 ($2800) for a 33 channel top of the line hearing aid.

    Either one of these is WAY below the prices you quoted, and i don't see why it should cost anywhere near $8000 (£5000?!) - that's nearly the price of a small brand new car...

    This is one of the links i looked at, and i include it for reference.
    www.affordablehearingaids.co.uk/

  144. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    "General unchecked avarice" is pretty much a perfect definition of capitalism.

    You sound somewhat intelligent (at least). I hope you're just being cynical, and haven't drunk the cool aid. Despite what liberal ideologues would have you believe, there is a world of difference between capitalism, and anarchy.

    The only thing that would hold that avarice in check is a well-informed market that has a reasonable understanding of the products in the market, knows how to estimate things like cost to produce and profit margins, and actually cares enough to walk away ...Such a market might have existed once before the Industrial and Information Ages, but not since then.

    I agree that it would help, but I'm not convinced that it would be sufficient. If we knew that each and every producer of Widget X was ripping us off, and by how much, we wouldn't be able to walk away. If it's electronics, we'd become information hermits. If it's transportation, we'd not be able to get to work and we'd lose our jobs. If it's healthcare, we'd die.

    Knowledge driven balanced capitalism relies on the availability of competition. Natural monopolies and inherent high barriers-of-entry prevent this without malice, per se. Some of the highest costs of the medical industry fall into this category. (not hearing aids, granted)

    No, what we truly need is the government to work for the people, and not those with the deepest pockets. Regulation should provide meaningful protection to the public (either to their health or their wallets), and not provide artificial barriers-to-entry or cost of doing business. Yeah, I know. I can dream, at least.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  145. £50 in UK? by pbhj · · Score: 1

    They seem to be about £50 in the UK for a rechargeable BTE hearing aid. There are cheaper ones too. Can't folk just get their medical professional to recommend a model and then buy it online themselves (eg shipped from China)?

  146. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    Why do hearing aids need to be regulated anyway? You can buy all kings of headphones/earbuds that don't need to be regulated, What's so special/dangerous about hearing aids?

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  147. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by macraig · · Score: 1

    Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.

    Yep, but the goal, as I was taught in Business Law 101, is to achieve an equal exchange of value... not PERCEIVED value, but actual value.

    I wonder if you really understand the capitalist dynamic very well. A capitalist economy WILL CHOKE AND DIE eventually if rough equality is not maintained in transactions; historically the choking and dying gets cut short by a revolution of some sort. We don't have that equality now, which is precisely why there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of a decreasing number of people. It's an economic version of the plot of Highlander.

  148. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    But we do - we pay in our taxes. Some people get more because they need more - this is the nature of how insurance should be. Instead, the US has a vast apparatus designed to bilk the policy holder out of payments as often as possible.

  149. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by macraig · · Score: 1

    Pure capitalism really is anarchy: it's called a black market. There are no rules, no regulations in a black market. Capitalism is a de-scriptive economic system: it's the economic law of the jungle. It's what any and every pre-scriptive economic system reverts to when the prescription fails (e.g. non-Marxian Communism). Pure capitalism is ethically neutral; ANYTHING goes if you can get away with it.

    Of course we don't have a pure capitalist economy: we've added multiple layers of pre-scriptive ethics and rules and regulations on top of it, in a desperate attempt to control that anything-goes behavior. Libertarian free market and socialist economies are also prescriptive and not descriptive; the whole point of both is to achieve a consensual voluntary ethic (moreso in socialism) that doesn't naturally exist. Human beings aren't well adapted to either system yet.

  150. National Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    National health care is not always a bed a roses but clearly here it does work a lot better than a private system. My mum in the UK has a hearing aid and the price you quote sounds about right for what she paid for her aid (although there was also the option to get a far more basic model on the NHS for free). Fitting and repairs were free - after all if you are purchasing the device you are saving the NHS from having to provide one themselves so it is their interest to make sure you can use it!

  151. Not old enough, but figured it out by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Morris:

    Another recurring bit, used in the newscast segment "Weekend Update", involved Morris being presented as "President of the New York School for the Hard of Hearing" and assisting the newscaster by shouting the main headlines, in a parody of the then-common practice of providing sign language interpretation in an inset on the screen as an aid to the deaf viewer.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  152. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by priceslasher · · Score: 1

    If you'll do something stupefying for 50hrs a week, consistently, then someone will give you a fistfull of cash. I wonder - if people worked half as much, there would be twice as many jobs and we'd have more time to become informed consumers?

  153. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

    No, the effect is that the manufacture is 100 USD instead of 3. The rest is the stupid healthcare system, low number of doctors and the stupidity of people who should realize that at this price, a round-trip to Europe, including the doctor and hearing aid would be cheaper.

  154. American Greed - what else is new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American Greed - what else is new - lest we forget we used to pay $200 for toilet seats in many government projects. The price of electronics has fallen dramatically based on the performance and value. (compare the 1980s PC to today's machines) Get the schematics to some Chinese manufacturing companies... you will see these things drop!

  155. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

    If by "crappier results" you mean "the most advanced medicines and treatments" and "thousands of people fly to the US for surgeries that they can't get in their 'superior' country with government run health care", then sure - you're right.

    Yet despite this, people on average die sooner here than most other developed countries. You have to look at bottom line results, nut just anecdotes about miracle treatments for a few lucky individuals. The bottom line here is: FAIL.

    As you point out, our healthcare system looks like 4-star hotels in Cuba: only wealthy foreign tourists seem to be able to afford it.

  156. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >>precisely why there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of a decreasing number of people

    Only if you look at percentages. If you look at constant dollars, there is an increasing concentration of material resources in the hands of an increasing number of people.

    In other words, if you buy into the liberal talking-point version of history, the middle class reached its zenith in the 50s and 60s, and it's been downhill ever since since then. Reality, however, disagrees.

  157. Monopoly? Collusion? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how many companies make them? It could be an effect of that, or just be ( unwritten cooperation ) price fixing between retailers.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  158. Old money by tepples · · Score: 1

    Do you also think you're some how morally superior those people who work for a profit instead of a "wage"? As to stock holders not doing any work in the classic sense you're somewhat correct. However, where do you think the money they use to invest comes from?

    Their rich parents.

  159. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by hexagonc · · Score: 1

    I think it depends on the cost to manufacture the item. Wanting someone to sell you device for $5 when it costs $1000 to make and you can afford to pay $1000 is certainly greedy. But I don't think its greedy to prefer to pay $1000 instead of $5000 for an item that that only costs $800 to make. I also don't know if it is greedy to prefer to pay $800 for a device when you can only afford to pay $800 but it costs $1000 to make. Especially if you need said item for a medical reason.

  160. A professional listeners warning by Airon · · Score: 1

    I edit and mix sound for a living and have done so for 20 years. My hearing slowly degrades and I try to keep it well protected so it doesn't go any faster than it needs to. Apart from that my training and experience is the only thing different from anyone less experienced listener. I've had my share of blunders like a few night at clubs without ear protection. For the last 20 years I've had less than twenty such nights, but it was enough to do some damage, so I've got a drip here and there in my testing curve.

    A few years back a friend of mine had a bunch of teenagers in his studio where he records bands. He played them a few test tones. A quarter of them couldn't hear above 15kHz, some even 14kHz. I need to crank up 17kHz very high so I can still hear it, but these kids could hear less than I can now.

    Some of them started crying. Some wouldn't believe it. All of them were quite shocked.

    If you don't protect your hearing, you'll be a cripple twenty to fourty years earlier than you need to. A pack of one-time use foam protection knobs or whatever they're called where you live is less than a latte at your favorite coffee shop. You just need to handle this in a smart way, read up about it and take comon sense precautions. Or be crippled.

    1. Re:A professional listeners warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I appreciate the warning as much anyone.

      Wikimedia defines cripple -> "A cripple is a person or animal with a physical disability, particularly one who is unable to walk because of an injury or illness."

      There are many reasons for deafness. Some are hereditary, some are caused via environment.

      However calling someone who is deaf or hard of hearing a "cripple" only makes people ashamed and more inclined to hide this disability and not to seek help.

  161. Prices in Holland are considerably lower. by CdXiminez · · Score: 1

    €600 ($820) for a basic device, about €1200 ($1640) for a good device, and up to €2500 ($3420) for a superior hearing aid in Holland:

    http://www.hetgehoor.net/info/hoorapparaten-prijzen
    http://www.optiekvangorp.be/index.php?id_wp=46&id_ws=1

    The US price situation looks like a cartel to me then.

    1. Re:Prices in Holland are considerably lower. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Add to that the fact that the doctor you go to in order to get the correct hearing aid can charge you based on a number he/she pulls out of their ass and you'll see just how big that cartel is.

      Doctor making billing decisions:
      hmmm. I have to make my benz payment this week so... that will be $860 for the exam.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  162. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by IICV · · Score: 1

    isn't wanting something cheaper just as greedy as wanting something more expensive?

    If I demand a $5 hearing aid how is that less greedy than charging $5k? Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.

    Three reasons:

    1. Because you won't get that five dollar hearing aid, but the company will sell a five thousand dollar one. If it's not actually possible to set the price you want, that's not actual practical greed, it's just wishful thinking.

    2. Because the people who want the five dollar hearing aid have a real disability which would be cured by the hearing aid, whereas the producer presumably already has a hearing aid if they need it. This is generally seen as being less greedy - it's not so much a matter of I want it for cheap, it's more I need it and it's too expensive.

    3. Because people gauge greed based on presumed cost to manufacture vs price asked on the market; if people think it was really cheap to make your product but you're asking five thousand dollars for it, they'll think you're greedy. I mean, how expensive do you think hearing aids are to make these days? It's just a teeny little DSP with a microphone, battery and speaker, for goodness sakes. Sure, it's all miniaturized, but even then I'd have a hard time believing the thing costs more than fifty dollars to make and ship. Of course, people say that it's expensive to comply with FDA regulations, but I really don't think that costs thousands of dollars per unit.

  163. A bubble? by udachny · · Score: 0

    Why would you describe it as a bubble? It's not like people invest their savings into hearing aid devices by buying them right now to sell them at a higher price later on. The prices are going up for new models, the old models are not going up in price, so you can't buy an old one now and sell it at a premium later on. This is a price increase based on increase of demand and the fact that it's so hard to qualify under the FDA to be a producer and seller, so whoever produces/sells them now is in a position of having a monopoly, it's not a bubble.

  164. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    Except when you have a captive market. When you have a product that people need, and a virtual monopoly on the supply chain, you can effectively set the prices at whatever you want, and people have no choice but to pay.

    As the adage goes, everything is worth what its purchaser will pay. But that does depend on the purchaser having the choice of paying somebody else for the product if he doesn't like the price you're charging.

    That said, $3000 isn't unreasonable for a hearing aid, when you consider the technology and miniaturization that goes into the current generation of them. If you were charging that for a 1960's era over-the-ear hearing aid that ran on a cr2025 and lasted about 6 hours on a full charge, and produced a staticky hissy mess of the sound that was louder, but was crap, then I'd tell you that you were nuts. But even over-the-ear hearing aids are much improved in technology, and considering the patents and regulation involved, that cost is reasonable.

  165. venture capitalist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard through the grapevine a few years back about a venture capitalist who was looking into breaking into this business because his mother needed hearing aids and he was outraged by the cost.

    The plan at the time was to create "modular" hearing aids. The electronics, something like 8 different molds for the ear canal, something similar for the holder. Apparently the manufacturing cost of something like this would end up running like $30-$50 per hearing aid. That would be a big boon for people fitting into the majority case. I frankly hadn't heard anything else about this since though.

  166. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    You're kidding, right? Regulations are NOT part of free market capitalism.

    And yet regulations are necessary.

    So, as I suspected, true free market capitalism is impossible. Thus, a faith-based belief in it as a solution to all problems is irrational and counterproductive.

  167. Listenup Canada sells their own brand for $400 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They advertise on the radio (1010 CFRB) all the time. Free warranty, service, batts for 5 years.

  168. Bubble + "cost of living increase" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The price of hearing aids have gone up over the years. I think it also reflects the rising affluence of the users (read: baby boomers).

    I was born with hearing loss. I've worn aids since I was 5. The first time I bought a set myself (with my own income) it was $1500 in the 90's. My current digital behind-the-air aid cost $1800. A recent talk with my dispenser marked the price at $3000. I understand research and development costs money; I also understand that the price includes as many office visits as I need without fees. Still, it's a lot of money.

    If I want Bluetooth, that's an extra $1000! I just don't get why I can't have Bluetooth built in. Why do I have to plug in another module onto the back of my aid (further decreasing battery life) AND a separate module in my pocket to act as wireless bridge between the aid and my mobile phone?

    One unsurprising fact: Costco now sells hearing aids.

  169. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by joocemann · · Score: 1

    Pffft. You've got your lies and you're sticking to them. I hope you're very rich, else your ignorance hurts you(us).

    Wages have not increased with inflation since the late 70s. Debt is rampant, and few are able to invest as our parents did. Real property and ownership (wealth) is amassed and enforced to the richest, and the wealth disparity among people expands. This is the truth. Lie all you want, but you know you're full of shit.

  170. Your family doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://drugstore1.comsyhost.com/ Mental Disorders
    Hypertension
    Cardiovascular Diseases
    Skin Care
    Gastrointestinal Tract
    Antiparasitic
    Urinary Tract
    Osteoporosis
    Diabetes
    Respiratory Tract
    Asthma
    Diuretics
    Women's Health
    Birth Control
    Antiallergic
    Antibiotics
    Antidepressants
    Alcoholism
    Erectile Dysfunction
    Anti-inflammatories
    Arthritis
    Analgesics
    Alzheimer's And Parkinson's
    Cancer
    Surgery
    Men's Health
    Eye Care
    Migraine
    HIV
    Cholesterol
    Anticonvulsants
    Antifungals
    Antivirals
    Muscle Relaxants
    Neurological Disorders
    Obesity
      Generic Viagra
      Generic Viagra is used to treat male Impotence also known as Erectile Dysfunction.

    http://drugstore1.comsyhost.com/

  171. Interchangeable Parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, hearing aids are made from the same parts that make TI graphing calculators.

  172. UK and AU pointless posts. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Funny

    All of these posts about how your countries give hearing aids to elderly and poor is just rude. If the U.S. was a AAA country we would do it too. Showing off your wealth is lame.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:UK and AU pointless posts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not because other countries are rich, there is just a focus on health, rather than low tax and consumption.

  173. Applaud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hear, hear! I agree.

  174. Waaaaaaaht? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Speak up son!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  175. Ahh yes, the free market fixes all by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    Ayn Rand would be so proud.
    Luckily, you can step out from under taxes in the USA. Just leave the country, and renounce your citizenship.
    Consider Somalia as a destination, as they have a general lack of taxes, and very lax borders. The government doesn't interfere with your life at all over there.. and medical care is very cheap.

    The real problems are complex, with a bunch of strange pitfalls.
    Waving hands and spouting a nebulous ideal is only appropriate in a small circle of people who are passing around a bong.

  176. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    Pffft. You've got your lies and you're sticking to them. I hope you're very rich, else your ignorance hurts you(us).

    Wages have not increased with inflation since the late 70s. Debt is rampant, and few are able to invest as our parents did. Real property and ownership (wealth) is amassed and enforced to the richest, and the wealth disparity among people expands. This is the truth. Lie all you want, but you know you're full of shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

    Damn... it must hurt to be so wrong.

  177. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    And the reason the price was so high to begin with? Because the hospital knows the insurance company is going to pay a fraction of the cost. Healthcare is broken in this country. I don't know that a government run system is the answer, but what we have now certainly isn't working.

  178. Not quite accurate but close. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can see inexpensive ones advertised on TV for $1500 for a pair. The last time I bought a pair two years ago I bought the same units that I had. They were $3,600 before and two years ago they were down to about $2,800 for the pair. That included all doctor fees and visits.

    but you are correct in that the price of these are not coming down very fast. The prime reason is that these are "medical devices" and all medical devices cost beaucoup dollars to be certified by the govenment.

  179. greed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the price of the components are decreasing (or at least staying the same) and the price of the product keeps rising then this is a symptom of pure greed and nothing else. Either by the manufacturer or middleman is irreverent, this is why heath care is out of control in the US.

  180. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    Call me when you can euthanize grama because her surgery is too expensive.

    You theory is that because euthanasia is available, surgery is less expensive? Huh?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  181. Cost of headset... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the internal circuitry of a hearing aid much like that of a bluetooth headset minus the antenna / bluetooth hardware plus an amp?

    Add in a bit of medical insurance / verification, shouldn't get anywhere near $1000...

  182. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by sakshale · · Score: 1

    Medicare pays for hearing aids.

    Is that supposed to be a good thing?

    --
    For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
  183. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    You can still say you have pure capitalism with basic laws. For example, I can't sell something that I don't own. That is illegal. That law does not interfere with pure capitalism. Truth in advertising laws (sometimes) don't interfere with pure capitalism. Anti-fraud laws (typically) don't interfere with pure capitalism.

    Pure capitalism amounts to: You've got stuff; I want stuff; You want to sell me stuff; I want to buy stuff; We work something out, and the government stays out of it. As long as that dynamic is preserved unfettered, you still have pure capitalism.

    Now, I'm not arguing that we actually have pure capitalism, nor that we should in every industry. I am arguing that capitalism isn't the boogeyman that certain agendas make it out to be.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  184. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

    A valid point. But the balance is tipped here towards the consumer, as they don't "want" the device, they want to continue to live their life in the fashion they have up to that point, rather than as a deaf person. To capitalize on that need by insisting on a huge profit margin is a lot more easily seen as greedy than the same situation for a luxury good.

  185. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Doctors aren't the issue, it's the medical equipment and supply companies and there are few enough of those that collusion IS happening.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  186. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Inflation! Inflation! Inflation!

    Graphs like that one are completely worthless because they don't account for inflation. Assuming an optimistic inflation of 2% annual, that chart would actually prove you wrong.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  187. Something I tell people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We hear about how doctors need to be paid more because that way medicine will attract the "best and brightest.

    I respond, "No. The best and brightest go to Silicon Valley to become billionaires before they're 30. Bright folks with no imagination, who can get a 'B' or better in Organic Chem and do well on their MCATs go to med school."

  188. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by macraig · · Score: 1

    I'm not arguing that it is, but the incumbent problem is that we have an economy in which far too many of the transactions taking place are not exchanges of equal value, and if that continues it will ultimately wreck the economy. Before that actually happens we'll wind up with a revolution or civil war. It will be a "class conflict" of the same sort that has happened so many times before, for exactly the same reasons. Marx wasn't wrong in his analysis of the flaws of capitalism, and he correctly identified the problem was not the system itself but Homo sapiens; what he got wrong was his imagined solution that relies on human behavior that simply isn't possible with enough consistency.

    Any economic system, regardless of the type or underlying theory, MUST have these equal exchanges of value in order to function correctly. Unequal transactions cause an imbalance that magnifies with time. Without sufficient controls/checks/inhibitors, capitalism allows this to happen. Marxist socialism, being entirely dependent upon voluntary consensual behavior, also would allow this to happen if people don't cooperate. The libertarian free market system also allows it in the same way as our current form of capitalism, perhaps even moreso. So no matter what system we choose this will continue to happen - cyclically - given the nature of human behavior, unless we constantly step in and interfere with the process. So there's no "set it and forget it" economic system, as long as humans remain the marginally social creatures that we are.

  189. there's an app for that by pbjones · · Score: 1

    in a world where iPlods are common place I don't see why hearing aids have to be small or expensive. A quick and dirty app would give similar functionality to equaliser type hearing aids and it could easily include DIY tuning by playing a series of tones and allowing the user to adjust the levels so that they sound about the same. First person to the patent office wins the prize.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  190. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    Yes, and the fact that the US has the worth diet for the typical person and the highest obesity rates has NOTHING to do with a lower life expectancy *rolls eyes*. Give it up man, you have no ground to stand on. Normal people (yes, even those making less than $30,000 a year) get high quality medical care in the US all the time without going bankrupt. Just because some people have shit luck and get something insanely expensive to treat or are too stupid to get insurance (and considering that even McDonald's provides insurance AND that you can buy insurance on your own directly from companies - which I've done before when working a job that didn't provide insurance, so it IS a choice to not have insurance) doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the system.

    Just because you're butthurt that in the US you're (not quite as much anymore thanks to our increasingly socialist government) expected to pay your own bills instead of leeching off someone else and forcing them to pay your bills for you doesn't show a problem with the US - it shows a problem with your laziness and greed.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  191. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of Winston Churchill: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

    Same for capitalism, and for similar reasons.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  192. Simple Capitalism by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    The problem is that people are not paying for their own hearing aids. If people paid for their own hearing aids, and other health care, then they would object to over pricing and shop more carefully. With the way the system is setup with third party insurance (private or government) paying the costs go through the roof since nobody cares how much it costs, just that they get what they want.

    If people have to pay out of their own pocket then the price will drop.

  193. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

    There are also at any time thousands and thousands of animals (I don't even know how many, honestly, but it's an incredible amount) waiting in shelters who are euthanized if they aren't adopted. Sick animals requiring care are euthanized first. The shelters themselves largely exist because of charitable donation, or government support. So not a wonderful system to compare to how we want to treat human beings.

  194. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Yes, and the fact that the US has the worth diet for the typical person and the highest obesity rates has NOTHING to do with a lower life expectancy

    Part of the job of a healthcare system is addressing those issues before they cause big problems. Once again, in the US we get epic failure at twice the cost of other countries. (We do a great job treating erectile dysfunction, though.)

    AND that you can buy insurance on your own directly from companies

    You're deluded. Try buying full coverage individual insurance if you or any member of your family has *any* health problems. You can't, because there is NO free market solution for that.

    I assume that you support Obamacare, because it does exactly what you want: Make people responsible for buying insurance. Am I wrong?

  195. Another Example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's bring out another example of overpricing. Worked in the optical industry (glasses) for 5 years. The average cost of 2 pre-shaped plastic lenses: $4. Cost for sale: $40. The average cost of 2 pre-shaped polycarbonate lenses: $12. Cost for sale: $100. Metal frames: $20 vs. $100 for sale. But... Is this rise in cost worth the other costs that go into making the glasses: high tech lens cutter ($10K), technician to cut & test ($15/hr), store & staff ($????/month), special pare of screwdrivers & pliers to fit the lens & frames ($20-$50 a tool...Yeah, another mark-up.), insurance ($???????????????), etc.

    I won't speculate on whether this makes up for the increase in price, I don't know all the expenses.But I've always been taught, and I know it's rare to practice these days, don't judge until you know all the facts. And I'd REALLY love to see all the facts when I'm paying the bill ...

  196. No, you are the one that is wrong by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    In fact, someone else in this thread posted a link to a site for FDA approved hearing aids that start at $300: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-09/health/sc-health-0309-hearing-aid-20110309_1_hearing-aid-hearing-loss-hearing-loss-association

    Hearing aids cost so much for a single reason: it's the price that the market is willing to pay. That article mentions an interesting fact, only 22% of people that buy hearing aids have a health insurance policy that helps with the purchase in any way. In other words, over three-quarters of the people buying hearing aids are buying them entirely out of their own pocket. So what you've got is the market equilibrium price.

    Note something else about the above linked article. Those low cost hearing aids (the $300 to $800 dollar ones) are only good for people with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. I'd be more than willing to wager $100 that the Voxom aid is only good for people with a mildly severe hearing loss, if that.

  197. Bubbles burst, this is greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bubble nearly always bursts (else its a ball). In this case the markups and gouging will remain in place until they are made illegal.

  198. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    Inflation! Inflation! Inflation!

    Graphs like that one are completely worthless because they don't account for inflation. Assuming an optimistic inflation of 2% annual, that chart would actually prove you wrong.

    Did you even bother to read the description?

    It's in "constant 2007 dollars", which means it is adjusted for inflation.

    But good try, though - shame you're completely wrong.

  199. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So not a wonderful system to compare to how we want to treat human beings.

    What does that have to do with the cost of medical procedures?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  200. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

    it just shows how inadequate it is as a system. Those that can afford to pay the exorbitant fees get surgery, and those that can't, or weren't a member of a wealthy family, get euthanized. You can't say "well veterinary systems are for profit and they work fine." without taking into account the entire system for ALL of the animals including ones that are sick, abandoned, whose families can't afford surgeries and treatments, etc, not just those few who can afford to pay for either the expensive medical procedures or insurance. If you wanted to compare the two honestly, you'd have to have accept people going without any healthcare, and people being euthanized. Is that the way you want to run healthcare? Because that doesn't sound very humane to me.

  201. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So, the disparity in costs, say open heart surgery at $12,000 vs $200,000 is entirely due to the $200,000 (human) cost being used to pay for people who can't afford open heart surgery? I thought that's what Medicare and Medicaid were for.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  202. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by andymadigan · · Score: 1

    We have plenty of specialists, but there are areas of the country with shortages of GPs, mostly because becoming a specialist is the only way to pay off the massive debt incurred to get an M.D. in the first place.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  203. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

    no, it also costs in greed. There are a lot of middlemen in the insurance company that have to be paid, then the shareholders have to make a profit, etc. Which is why for profit healthcare is evil.

  204. Not exclusive to hearing aids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As somebody wearing glasses since around 14 years of age, I noticed a similar issue.

    I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a pair of plastic lenses coupled with some low-grade metal alloy is comparable in price to an advanced circuit board.

    I cannot buy "regular" no-frills glasses for less than $300. With "anti-scratch" coating (that does not really do the job well, since I keep having to replace the glasses every year and a half or so despite keeping the same prescription) and some reasonably looking frames (the below-$100 "standard price" selection I've seen at the several outlets I tried plain has to be made to be ugly) easily runs into $500... after the discounts.

    There was an interesting article I read somewhere about a single conglomerate controlling most optical outlets in the US. Plenty of other available after quick googling for verification of it not being just an anecdotal observation.

  205. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    no, it also costs in greed. There are a lot of middlemen in the insurance company that have to be paid, then the shareholders have to make a profit, etc. Which is why for profit healthcare is evil.

    But for-profit veterinary medicine does not have those cost problems. Why would the 'greed' be lacking there?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  206. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by mesterha · · Score: 1

    I have several points, but yes veterinary care is less expensive because euthanasia is an acceptable alternative to an expensive life saving procedure. How many dogs get quadruple bypass surgery? How many cats get two rounds of chemotherapy? Since the demand is limited for expensive life saving procedures, they don't frequently happen. In fact the really expensive procedures aren't even an alternative because there is not enough of a market to do the research.

    --

    Chris Mesterharm
  207. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

    I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. It's pretty obvious from the state of HUMAN healthcare that there are is a lot of middlemen, greed and abuse involved. That is the point of for profit medicare - to turn a profit. That the US spends the most on its healthcare per capita, but doesn't get the best results is published fact. Your arguments that since treating dogs and cats doesn't cost as much, for profit healthcare isn't evil and detrimental is on its face retarded, and when actually thought about incredibly stupid. I'm talking reality, not some sort of fiction you've invented in your mind. you aren't a furry, are you?

  208. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Yes, when the GP is complaining that people who generally need hearing aids can't afford them because they are old and on fixed incomes, i.e. retired and living on Social Security and any savings they have. Medicare, which said people qualify for, pays for the hearing aids. And, remember, many hearing aids are hand made to a custom fit, which is one reason they are so expensive.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  209. Audiologist or Hearing Aid Specialist for Hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are having hearing difficulties and are considering a hearing aid, call around for prices. You may not be getting the best price or care from your hearing aid specialist. I would recommend seeing an Audiologist which requires at least a Masters to Doctorate degree in hearing science. Most, if not all, states have licensure for both hearing aid specialist (which require no prior education level) and Audiologist. I am an Audiologist and quite often times see hearing aid patients who have been poorly or inaccurately fit and overcharged for hearing aids.

  210. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    In fact the really expensive procedures aren't even an alternative because there is not enough of a market to do the research.

    You can go to a university medical center and get open heart surgery for your dog if you want to. Here's the first one that shows up on a search.

    The procedure for open heart surgery at UC Davis is exactly the same as that which is performed on human patients.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  211. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    It's pretty obvious from the state of HUMAN healthcare that there are is a lot of middlemen, greed and abuse involved.

    Right.

    That the US spends the most on its healthcare per capita, but doesn't get the best results is published fact.

    Sort of, but unrelated to the matter at hand. It's very expensive on average, but it does have the best outcomes at the extreme upper end. That's why world leaders ship to the US for complex care.

    Your arguments that since treating dogs and cats doesn't cost as much, for profit healthcare isn't evil and detrimental

    I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. Veterinary medicine is for profit and it's not evil (pricing wise) and it's not detrimental. Do you disagree with any of that?

    Their business model is superior. What's not to get here? It has the outcomes you seem to want without the waste and greed.

    I'm talking reality, not some sort of fiction you've invented in your mind.

    Reality is the status quo. Are you advocating the status quo or have you invented some sort of alternative in your mind?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  212. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by joocemann · · Score: 1

    2 things for you. 1) 99th percentile is far more exacerbated, and 99.9th percentile moreso... factors not in your graph but more fitting with our topic.

    2) the gap even between the 95th and all others is increased, so I am still correct even when you try to include dentists and doctors (95th) with CEOs and bankers (99.9th, my actual point of discussion).

    Eat your foot.

  213. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    2 things for you. 1) 99th percentile is far more exacerbated, and 99.9th percentile moreso... factors not in your graph but more fitting with our topic.

    2) the gap even between the 95th and all others is increased, so I am still correct even when you try to include dentists and doctors (95th) with CEOs and bankers (99.9th, my actual point of discussion).

    Eat your foot.

    Nice attempt to move your argument, and to ignore both your claims that "Wages have not increased with inflation since the late 70s." and "The graph doesn't include inflation" have been shown to be complete bullshit.

    Everyone has been doing better since the 50s and 60s. Everyone. The fact that the rich are rising faster is simply an artifact of the fact that the top 1% of people (the capitalist class) derive their income from corporate earnings (which are not capped on the upside) instead of W2 wages (which are).

  214. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    You sound like a sniveling liberal born of well to do parents. Not all parents were able to invest as yours may have. There were far more poor in the 50-70s than you let on.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  215. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    why not sell the hearing aid for $50k $500k $5M then?

    Ohh yea, cause you're wrong.

    If hearing aids are so cheap and easy to make lets get together and start making them. $50 to make each we could sell at $150, still be really cheap and make a killing at it. Wonder why nobody else has thought of this.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  216. Big Box Hearing Aid Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a 7 year hearing aid dispenser. I hear the complaint of pricing all the time. The patient says, 'how come I can get a 60in plasma tv for a grand, but the hearing aids cost so much more?'

    There's more factors than just the chip in it. The authors are simplifying it too much in order to sell their hearing aids. The truth is in their last paragraph: "However, by far the most important factor for the current price levels has to do with the underlying industry structure; the relationship between manufacturers, audiologists and end-patients."

    They completely negate their whole initial argument with that statement.

    What I can tell you is that I see the financials as well as P&L numbers, gross margin, cost of goods, and payroll at a Big Box store that starts with a 'C' and they've managed to get the price down to $2600 a pair for the top of the line product (about half price). This number was $600 more two years ago, but Big Box C's philosophy is to reduce the price as much as possible and still turn a profit. My point is that if 'C', with a proven reputation to give the best possible price, and with the buying power of over 300 hearing aid locations, is still selling the product for thousands, it is priced right.

    The 'hearing aids' offered at this 'blog' are the same ones that collect dust in my patients' drawers while the ones I sell are on their ears. Quality is not cheap, but snake oil is.

  217. Re:$3k is 2 months income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If by "crappier results" you mean "the most advanced medicines and treatments" and "thousands of people fly to the US for surgeries that they can't get in their 'superior' country with government run health care", then sure - you're right.

    If you try to make an argument against the government run health care systems in the social democracies of Northern Europe you just shot yourself in the foot. Since it's simply not cost-efficient to have every kind of specialist in a country that has fewer inhabitants than many cities in the US, doctors have the authority to refer patients to specialists abroad - including in the US! That's right, every citizen in those countries has better access to the best specialists in the US than many Americans. Furthermore, the US is the country where medical tourism was invented - people travel abroad for cheaper, *necessary* treatments. Nowadays Europeans too engage in medical tourism but not for *necessary* treatments, only cosmetic surgery since foreign clinics are cheaper than private clinics here (yes! such clinics exist here too, in case you didn't know).

    Not only are those other countries medical systems going broke (the US is not, medicaid and medicare are due to promising people the world and realizing that they can't jack taxes enough to cover it) because they don't pay the full bill and just tack it on to the national debt - but they freeload by using medicines and techniques discovered by US companies, with several of those countries ignoring patent laws and flat out stealing the formulas for those medicines.

    More bullshit. European countries fully respect patents. I have a rare medical condition and my medication (all of which is made by American companies btw.) costs approximately 1800 € a month according to the receipts from the pharmacy but they also include such a nice subtraction as "100 % subsidy" so I only pay a 3 € fee. Thanks to the medication I am, however, able to live a normal life now. Furthermore, our systems aren't going broke at all since there's very little overhead compared with a for-profit system. No insurance bureaucracy approving or disapproving treatments since instead the doctors treating the patients have the authority to decide on treatments. Arguably, you might sometimes experience a delay since the maximum delay for treatment of non-urgent cases is 80 days (a non-urgent case is one which doesn't prevent you from working). Finally, it's amazing how a system which emphasizes getting people treated and back to work as soon as possible yields quite a lot of tax revenue (and I don't even want to guess what your erroneous impression of our tax rates might be...).

    But go ahead - fuck doctors and the people researching ways to treat cancer and other diseases in the ass and see how fast they say "Fuck you asshole, you can go die - we quit". Just because you're a greedy little shit who thinks that someone who spent a decade of their life becoming an expert should provide you with everything you want for little to no cost doesn't make them "bad" - it just makes you an ass who, if it wasn't for the Hippocratic oath they take, they'd toss out on your ass to die a painful death.

    Do small countries like Sweden and Finland have successful, world class pharmaceutical industries because they fuck doctors?

    Jesus christ, take some damn responsibility for yourself and realize that the world doesn't exist to serve your whims.

    I would like you to tell me what my fate would've been if I had been born to middle class parents in the US and whether I would've become a good tax payer when my story here goes like this: At the age of 15 I developed a rare medical condition, which required treatments that my middle class parents wouldn't possibly have been able to afford (thousands of euros a month so I suspect an insurance cap would've been reached eventually). However, in our system, I was able to get those treatmen

  218. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by joocemann · · Score: 1

    You can't discern the difference between you and us? My point stands, even if you need to pretend all of our parents had to have investments for me to be right. They don't. They only have to have invested more, just as I said. Eat foot.

  219. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by joocemann · · Score: 1

    The data presented in wikipedia is not robust or in any way representative of actual inflation. I urge you to examine Elizabeth Warren's analysis of the middle class and ACTUAL cost inflations; you may be surprised to find that 40k in 2007 or 1970 (adjusted) has much different purchasing power.

    Inflation is twofold. Basing solely on money supply and not actual value in practice is not representative of the situation at hand.

    Good luck on waiting for the elites to piss that golden trickle down onto your face.

  220. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >>you may be surprised to find that 40k in 2007 or 1970 (adjusted) has much different purchasing power.

    CPI is always hard to adjust for. But for things that I care about (computers), I'd much rather be living now than in the 70s, in both price and power.

    >>I urge you to examine Elizabeth Warren's analysis of the middle class and ACTUAL cost inflations

    I've actually pulled the actual numbers from federal sources. The middle class really is better off now than at any time before by pretty much any measure. And by "now", I mean "right before the current recession".

    >>The data presented in wikipedia is not robust

    I'm rather disappointed that you would prefer to believe your incorrect beliefs over facts, but that's just how people of a certain political mindset are wired, I guess.

  221. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by joocemann · · Score: 1

    One BIG factor I can show you by phone is housing. Even postv bubble.

    http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf

    You see a 10-fold increase between 1970 and 2010. You inflation adjusted wages aren't even 2fold

  222. Re: "general unchecked avarice" by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >>You see a 10-fold increase between 1970 and 2010. You inflation adjusted wages aren't even 2fold

    Do you even know what inflation-adjusted dollars means?

    And why comparing it against unadjusted prices, in just one category, accomplishes nothing more than your ignorance of economics?