Slashdot Mirror


A Crowdfunding Site To Help Pay Patients' Medical Bills

Lucas123 writes: A start-up financial services company called Someone With Group has just completed a pilot of a crowdfunding service that allows hospitals to set up campaigns to help patients pay their medical expenses. The website, which is HIPAA compliant in terms of privacy and security, allows patients facing medical debts to inform family, friends and even strangers of their need for funds versus flowers or cards. The crowdfunding service also addresses a systemic debt issue in the healthcare industry. Each year, the U.S. healthcare industry writes off $40 billion in bad debt from unpaid medical bills. "Then you consider that $6 billion is spent on cards and flowers for patients every year. Why can't we redirect that money and put it into a debit instrument restricted to medical spending only?" said Jagemann-Bane, CEO of Someone With Group. One hospital group, Pinnacle Health Systems in Harrisburg, Penn., routinely writes off $40 million to $50 million a year in unpaid medical bills from patients. The hospital set up a crowdfunding site via Someone With Group and so far has seen a couple dozen patients use it. ... After a one-year pilot of the crowdfunding service, patients who've used it on average have raised $2,315.

285 comments

  1. Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I suspect this is the "replace" portion of the Republican plan to dismantle the ACA.

    1. Re:Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
      "Are there no prisons?"
      "Plenty of prisons..."
      "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
      "Both very busy, sir..."
      "Those who are badly off must go there."
      "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
      "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

    2. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a good step in mitigating a problem that only exists because your country is fucked.

      Most other remotely advanced economies and civilised societies recognise that health is not something that can or should be traded on the free market.

      In glad I don't live in the United States of Fuck You In The Ass With A Broken Beer Bottle.

    3. Re: Repeal and Replace. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Health is the responsibility of the person, not the community. Since the community has no say in how a person lives their life, whether that person smokes, gets drunk, uses drugs or is obese, why should the community be responsible to pay the medical bills for that person? Obviously the person doesn't care about their health or they wouldn't have chosen the lifestyle they lead.

      A civilized society wouldn't force its citizens to hand over their money to protect those who choose to kill themselves through their own bad choices, especially when that society has endlessly informed its citizens about the dangers of such lifestyles choices.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great, but what about the 3-year-old daughter of a colleague of mine with a brain tumor? Is that because she does drugs, or maybe she smokes?

    5. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree, but there are plenty of people who get sick though no fault of there own. even those who eat right, exercise and do everything perfect can get sick or get into an accident that was not there fault.

    6. Re: Repeal and Replace. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      That's fine. I have no problem with helping such people since quite obviously they did not choose their condition.

      Helping such people would be much more cost effective in the long run than the process we have now where everyone can do whatever they like secure in the knowledge someone else will pick up their tab.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Now, who decides which human being is worth this help? The government? "Death panels?

    8. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Another way to help people is always welcome. I'm not sure the Get Well Card industry would agree with redirecting their income though. The 'Big Card' lobby will fight this!

    9. Re:Repeal and Replace. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Most other first world countries actually solves the financing through taxes so your income won't matter.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dad had his adenoids removed with radiation therapy as a teen, which at the time was considered a safe medical practice. 40 years later he developed a mass in the same general area. The practice that performed it was long gone. Should he get help or is he on the hook for his "own" choices? And is helping him more expensive than digging through his life to figure out if that or something else he did caused it?

    11. Re: Repeal and Replace. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      health is not something that can or should be traded on the free market.

      America's healthcare system is about as far as you can get from a free market. Patients have no ability to compare prices, or even know what services cost when they are provided. If socialized medicine was the sole answer, America would have a wonderful healthcare system, because our government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world, and is near the top in per-capita government medical spending as well. Our medical system is bloated, inefficient, and bureaucratic, and at 18% of GDP it is bigger than the entire economy of Canada. If our medical system became as efficient and effective as other developed countries, it would wipe out 10% of our economy, and eliminate the jobs of more than 7 million well paid people. There is a huge amount of inertia and resistance to change.

    12. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obviously you have perfect health, were not born with generic issues and have never needed to have your appendix removed, or never had emergency surgery for an anatomic issue that caused a medical emergency. Not all medical bills are caused by not taking care of yourself.

    13. Re:Repeal and Replace. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      And when the jail / prison system takes up the slack it will cost more.

    14. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those kids who contract leukemia at 8 should have taken better care of themselves.

    15. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Howabout the woman in the article? She has breast cancer. It didn't come from smoking or drinking or doing drugs. And giving is voluntary. Your point is pointless.

    16. Re: Repeal and Replace. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Health is the responsibility of the person, not the community. Since the community has no say in how a person lives their life, whether that person smokes, gets drunk, uses drugs or is obese, why should the community be responsible to pay the medical bills for that person? Obviously the person doesn't care about their health or they wouldn't have chosen the lifestyle they lead.

      A civilized society wouldn't force its citizens to hand over their money to protect those who choose to kill themselves through their own bad choices, especially when that society has endlessly informed its citizens about the dangers of such lifestyles choices.

      Really - society bears no responsibility? Tell that to the people of Flint who have been poisoned by lead. Or the person walking down the street who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets shot/hit and run/raped?

      These are not lifestyle choices.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re: Repeal and Replace. by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      So you want to draw a line between bad luck and bad choices, and pay for one but not the other? One person who gets lung cancer, and never smoked a single cigarette gets insurance coverage, maybe a guy who smoked one time as a rebellious teenager gets 90% coverage, while the pack a day smoker, gets no coverage, and chooses between paying out of pocket or death?

      You can extrapolate that, to a wide variety of activities-
      Got hit by a car - Were you jaywalking? Did you look both ways?
      Fell off a ladder - What safety precautions did you take? Can you prove you didn't step on the top rung? Maybe society should charge you $5k unless you have evidence?


      After all, its the lifestyle these people chose, of walking on the street, or using a ladder, right? Or do you only want proof of healthy living for certain diseases like cancer? Looks like the slope gets pretty slippery there....

    18. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just a minute, your healthcare is done by private companies, so it must be the most efficient, our UK government tells us this everyday as they attempt to convert the NHS to private heathcare, surely you must be mistaken?

    19. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government spending on healthcare is nearly the same as other countries, it's the private industry that has huge amounts of waste. If you're using private insurance, about $0.50 of every dollar goes to overhead. If you use medicare or other government sources, it's about $0.15 of the dollar. For the same procedures of course. This is just for the doctor's offices. This ignores how much the average person pays in versus how much the value average person gets back. Private insurance just gets worse and worse.

    20. Re: Repeal and Replace. by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      What about her? Her parents are likely employed and insured. If not then they are on welfare and covered by Medicaid. Either way, they are not simply left out in the cold.

      People who aren't actually patients have these strange hysterical notions about how healthcare works.

      Also, you are fixating on an extreme case there. The more typical case involves costs that are no more than what you would be wiling to pay for some total luxury. The only problem is your willingness to pay, not your actual ability to pay.

      Americans simply don't know how good they have it. Europeans might not realize this either. Americans simply make more. They also keep more and their money goes farther. So Americans have more choices.

      The European approach basically takes the individuals money before they can squander it.

      A lot of people who need to engage in this sort of digital pan handling are not badly off. They just chose not to be prepared. This includes people who choose to live in McMansions yet leave no resources left over for emergencies. They choose to blow all of their money rather than save or invest any of it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The people in Flint were poisoned by lead because they failed to require their elected politicians to govern responsibly.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post a rant about how stupid, uneducated, and willfully ignorant the average Michigander is, but you've summed it up quite well in one sentence.

    23. Re: Repeal and Replace. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The city is being run by the Receivership Transition Advisory Board. The decision to change the water source was made under the state-appointed Emergency Manager.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re: Repeal and Replace. by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Under ACA, insurers are not allowed to spend less than 80% of premium dollars on health costs. Failure to do so makes them subject to issuing a refund to policyholders.

    25. Re: Repeal and Replace. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Isn't it more that they had an incompetent water department AND bad city government?

    26. Re: Repeal and Replace. by budgenator · · Score: 1, Informative

      The people of Flint are poisoned because they habitually elect corrupt city officials, just like the people of Detroit.

      In 1963, Flint moved to build a pipeline from Lake Huron to Flint, but a profiteering scandal derailed that pipeline. This led the city to sign a contract to purchase water for 30 years from the Detroit Water Department on June 6, 1964 ... March 2010, former pipeline supporter and former Genesee County Drain Commissioner Ken Hardin came out against the project, based on the City of Flint's poor financial condition. Instead, he recommended that the county seek a seat on a regional water board with Detroit. Karegnondi Water Authority

      everything was fine when they were getting their water from DWSD

      The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department is a sprawling network covering 1,079 square-miles,[1][2] servicing more than 40 percent of the U.S. state of Michigan's population,[1] and employing over 3,000 people.[3] DWSD is one of the most extensive and largest water and sewage systems in the United States.[1] Along with serving the entire city of Detroit, it also serves the counties of Genesee, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Wayne, St. Clair, Lapeer and Monroe.[1] In 2000, The network comprised 11,000 miles of water mains and a storage capacity of 363 million gallons.[4] Detroit Water and Sewerage Department

      but

      In March 2013, the Flint city council voted to switch their water supply from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) to the new $233 million Lake Huron-sourced Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA).[7] The switch was approved by the Flint emergency manager. ... State Treasurer Andy Dillon approved Flint joining KWA but gave DWSD the opportunity to make a final offer to convince Flint to stay on Detroit water.[11] Flint declined the final DWSD offer. Immediately after Flint declined the offer, DWSD gave Flint notice that their long-standing water agreement would terminate in twelve months.[12] This meant that Flint's water agreement with Detroit would end in April 2014 but construction of KWA was not expected to be completed until the end of 2016. Therefore, in April 2014 (when the water agreement terminated), Flint switched their water supply from DWSD to Flint's backup supply, the Flint River. The Flint river was expected to supply potable water until KWA construction was completed in 2016. Flint water crisis

      So the set up was two cities in bankruptcy were fighting over money and turf. The coup de grâce was the idiots at the Flint water treatment plant who did add the extra phosphates to protect the lead pipes from the extra salt in the Flint River as required by law and the idiots at DEQ who didn't follow protocols when high lead levels were detected.

      The only way to really fix the problem is to rip out the lead pipes, under the streets in the entire city of Flint, all of the household plumbing with lead based soldered joints and replace them. I also doubt the Karegnondi pipeline is going to be finished this year, they are barely working on the first pumping station by the lake inlet and the electrical substation hasn't got any equipment installed.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    27. Re: Repeal and Replace. by ewibble · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually Americans as a proportion of there GDP spend more on health (2013 17.1%) than any other country exception of Tuvalu (19.7%) and America is one of richest countries in the world, per person it only it spends more any other country than except Switzerland and Norway (they obviously have a higher GDP per capita) yet Americans life expectancy is ranked 34th, Norway 9th, Switzerland 2nd. Clearly Americans are spending just more to get a worse health care. So who is squandering their money? Insurance companies by definition take their cut, of health care spending, it is in there interest to keep health care cost high so that they can sell insurance in the first place.

      Ref: http://data.worldbank.org/indi... , http://data.worldbank.org/indi... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      These are not extreme cases at all, these are normal cases, people get sick, mostly through no predictable fault of their own. Yes people could save and plan for something happening, but with 11 out of 12 cancer drugs costing more than $100,000 per year (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/medical-costs/how-much-does-chemotherapy-cost/). The cost of a heart bypass surgery (which is not uncommon surgery) is $70,000-$200,000 without insurance, the main contributing factor to heart disease is genetics. Even the most fugal saver on an average income would probably be ruined by these expenses. This is not the cost of a luxury goods, unless you mean a Ferrari, and staying alive is not a luxury, it is by definition a necessity.

      Providing health care to the poor, benefits everyone, rich included. Having a population with lots of unhealthy people can infect the rich as well, a virus does not look at the size of your bank balance before infecting you.

    28. Re: Repeal and Replace. by ewibble · · Score: 2

      Like requiring a politicians to implement a decent health care system.

      Anyway, that would be society's as a whole fault wouldn't it? So society as a whole should pay for it.

    29. Re: Repeal and Replace. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Some people are greedy animals who only care about themselves....
      They oppose civilized health care

    30. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Seth+Morabito · · Score: 1

      I'm going to invoke Poe's Law on this reply because I can't possibly imagine anybody actually believing this. But, just in case you're serious (surely not)...

      Yes, actually it is our responsibility to care for each other. We live in a society. I pay property taxes that go to my local schools, and even though I have no children I am glad (and proud) to do so, because other people's children go to those schools. Those other people positively impact my life by contributing to society. Those sick people, should they be given treatment and become well again, also positively impact my life by contributing to society.

      You do not live in a bubble, man!

    31. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Toshito · · Score: 1

      Do you really think someone can become ill just because he made bad choices in his way of life?

      What about pollution? Viruses? Cancer? Car accidents? Those can happen to you even if you are an olympic athelete eating a vegan diet who has never smoked, drank alcohol or even coffee in his life.

      To think that cancer or having a life threatening infection can't happen to you because you chose a good lifestyle is a proof that you don't understand anything about health.

      You're a selfish, egocentric person, you don't want to share anything with others. I sincerely hope that you never need help from others, but it could happen to you in a flash.

      Humans are social animals, because it's much easier to survive as a group, helping each other as needed. Sometimes it's you who are going to contribute to others, and sometimes it's other who will contribute to you. That's part of being a responsible human being.

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    32. Re: Repeal and Replace. by rkww · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. It's not an issue whether people should pay for each other's healthcare; it's whether they should pay to run a huge insurance industry in addition to paying for their own actual healthcare.

      Imagine how much you could save if you weren't paying towards the salaries of every health insurance company employee -- from actuary to secretary; as well as paying for their advertising, their running costs, and their profits.

      If the insurance companies vanished overnight, they'd be the only losers. You could pay directly into a health fund which provided care as required, with no forms and no bills. The vast, expensive, unnecessary, paperwork nightmare would simply disappear.

      Yes, other people might benefit from the money you paid into the fund, but they would be people who needed care right now.

      Not insurance company leeches.

    33. Re: Repeal and Replace. by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Get rid of Obamacare!

      I want my insurance company to be as wasteful as possible! It's the Mercan way!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    34. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they ELECTED that bad city government, which hired the incompetents in the water department. Not only that, they did it for years as it became more and more obvious that the government was bad and incompetent.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    35. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at what politicians implement? What makes you think they are CAPABLE of implementing a decent health care system? I really do not want to get my health care from the VA (or from an organization designed by the same people who designed the VA).

      As for the Flint water problem, it is being paid for now by people who did not get a vote in the government that screwed it up.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    36. Re: Repeal and Replace. by jwdb · · Score: 1

      If socialized medicine was the sole answer, America would have a wonderful healthcare system, because our government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world, and is near the top in per-capita government medical spending as well.

      Methinks you're misusing the word "socialized" here: it's not just a synonym for "very-expensive-for-the-government". I don't see how you can call a system where only a minority of the population has government coverage "socialist".

      Your statistics are interesting, however: another way of viewing them is that US healthcare is *so* overpriced that the US government alone ends up spending more per capita on covering a minority of the population than almost every single socialist governments spends per capita on covering their entire population!

      That isn't just inefficient, that's fucking criminal.

    37. Re: Repeal and Replace. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of the houses are worth less than the cost of lead pipe removal? Factor in the municipal plumbing and it's probably not worth it to keep the city alive. With northern towns that are no longer viable, the few people left are paid to leave.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    38. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have universal socialized medicine? I think Obamacare just barely started to be something like almost universal health care, but heavily privatized anyways.

      Sure, even if you have socialized medicine the state still needs to slap the health care providers for charging too much and leave them be where things are appropriately priced, but they can do that okay enough if you give them the power and watch out for corruption.

      What you currently have though seems to be more like a coercive free market. It's private, except that in the situations where you need the services, you really usually have no choice. Even if you had choice, the pricing is also typically way too complex, unpredictable, and distributed across way too many items to get it right.

    39. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's part of being a responsible human being."

      Aah. Now it's clear why the US is fucked.

    40. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under ACA, insurers are not allowed to spend less than 80% of premium dollars on health costs. Failure to do so makes them subject to issuing a refund to policyholders.

      Which is why the 'health costs' are inflated, and the 'health provider' then gives the insurer a generous donation. The amount of bribery that's endemic to American business and government is really quite incredible.

    41. Re: Repeal and Replace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The elected government of Flint did not make the choice, it was done by state officials.

      And there is little reason to believe the people of Flint approved.

      Should they have risen in revolution?

    42. Re: Repeal and Replace. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of the houses are worth less than the cost of lead pipe removal? Factor in the municipal plumbing and it's probably not worth it to keep the city alive. With northern towns that are no longer viable, the few people left are paid to leave.

      That's easy, just leave the doors unlocked for a couple of days and all of the copper pipes and wires will be gone for free. A fair amount of the properties aren't worth the cost of demolishing the buildings that are on them, a person can pick up properties in Flint and Detroit for basically nothing, just pay off the back taxes, throw in some chump-change and do the renovations.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. The Bake Sale Model by crunchy_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've got a better idea: Single payer.

    1. Re:The Bake Sale Model by nightcats · · Score: 2

      Agreed: George McGovern's single-sentence addition to the Constitution is the best ("Medicare is hereby extended to cover all American citizens"); but nevertheless this is an outstanding common sense liferaft to throw in these troubled waters until this dying Empire somehow awakens from its cultural coma.

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    2. Re:The Bake Sale Model by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a better, better idea.

      1. Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.

      2. Make it transparent. How can anyone plan for non-emergency care when the prices are hidden behind a wall of Insurance red tape? I had an elective procedure done. I was quoted one price before and then presented with a bill for 5 times that later.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:The Bake Sale Model by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There are problems with single payer too. It isn't just some magical cure all.
      I am not talking about money, the US is wealthy enough to fund this with increased taxes. However the issues is in the details.
      Giving all the population health care will increase demand for health care services, and if the health providers are limited to government controlled rates, then there is little motivation for expansion to meet such demand. So there will be long wait lines for health services. Hoping the long wait time will make some people give up and not get health services, or wait too long and causing their problem to escalate to a more dangerous state.

      With a single payer you need to insure that we have growth in our health care infrastructure to meet the demand, and allow competition across health care systems to make sure they are invested on increasing improvements to their methods. Then you need to make sure that the health care organizations don't go overboard. and make them too expensive on the people's money. Keep on raising taxes for expensive improvements with small results isn't beneficial, as such money could go to better areas in need.

      There is a reason why the ACA was over 900 pages long. It isn't because of some grand conspiracy it is such actions are very complex with a wide range of cause and effect that could cost lives.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:The Bake Sale Model by internerdj · · Score: 1

      The idea of a single payer system is good, but saying single payer is the solution and implementing single payer are different animals. How deep do you make it governmental? Every place the government and private sector have to interface is the opportunity for profiteering and potential denial of care. It is easy to say that other countries have done it successfully, but you are going to take the largest health care system on the planet out of private hands into government management. That is going to have severe market ripples. Can we talk about side effects and mitigation strategies before we dive in? Instead of this is the solution, when we find problems with it suck it up like we've done with ACA?

    5. Re:The Bake Sale Model by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.

      The problem with that is that a lot of people who end up in bankruptcy over medical costs have insurance. Their rates are already discounted for their insurance, but they can't afford their deductibles, copays, or uncovered expenses. Even if everyone paid the same price, that problem wouldn't go away.

      On top of that, as the primary mission of every insurance company in the country is to make money - not to provide coverage for the patient (as that costs money) - the insurance companies are constantly searching for clever new ways to deny claims. Being as the federal government essentially gave the insurance industry a license to print money back in 2010 with the affordable care act, they now have free reign to try whatever they want to "bring costs down".

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I going to be prosecuted for refusing treatment for my child because it is too expensive?

      BTW, the reason you don't see real costs is because the payer systems (insurance, medicare) set their payout models for next year based on the costs from the current year. The doctor charges more than they will pay so that the payer system will cover the costs of the same procedure next year. It gets negotiated down to cover this years cost. If you go in and self pay, the office doesn't need to set your expectations for what your care will cost next year. If you require real costs, then your out of pocket requirements are likely going to skyrocket.

    7. Re:The Bake Sale Model by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Include monetary incentives for timely treatment. This would cause providers to keep wait times short, and shorter wait times would likely lead to fewer expensive complications due to people's untreated conditions worsening.

    8. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Am I going to be prosecuted for refusing treatment for my child because it is too expensive?

      I hope so. Anyone who neglects their children should be punished. A responsible parent gets their kids the medical care they need, even if it means bankruptcy.

    9. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      I have a better, better idea.

      1. Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.

      2. Make it transparent. How can anyone plan for non-emergency care when the prices are hidden behind a wall of Insurance red tape? I had an elective procedure done. I was quoted one price before and then presented with a bill for 5 times that later.

      This is *exactly* the issue. That $40B that is "written off" is actually paid by the suckers who pay without insurance. Hospitals literally only collect something like 10% of what is "owed" to them, so they simply charge 10x as much.

      I often buy medical services without insurance because it's cheaper if you're a good negotiator. Reread that. I use a simple tactic that goes like this: "I need ______ done and I will pay cash up front at the medicare reimbursement rate." The response is then "we don't make money at that rate." Ah, I have a better response: "And you're not guaranteed payment, which is why you lose money because some end up as denials. I will give you cash up front - you are guaranteed payment. It's a take-it-or-leave-it offer." Usually they take it and if not I simply move on.

      As an example of last time I did that, my wife needed an MRI on her knee. I negotiated with an independent MRI place here in town to do it for $490, which is the Medicare rate. My wife didn't believe I could get it cheaper and went to the place the insurance company said to go. Our "out of pocket" ended up being around $950, with the insurance company paying that much again. Exact same procedure.

      Anybody in this country can save up money and do this. Anybody. I have friends who are illegal aliens working for minimum wage (and paying federal income taxes) who saved up $30,000 for a downpayment on a house over the course of 5 years, so don't bother telling me about how *you* can't do it. Don't even bother.

      After you have some cash you'll find that negotiating is a whole nother ballgame, and one in which you can score much easier. That applies in medical services as much as anywhere else, and, in fact, it's even easier in medical services because medicare and insurance companies are already setting prices for procedures.

    10. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BTW I agree, but was using it to get to a point: A free market solution (using real costs) can't work if you can't refuse to do business based on that price.

    11. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring on the Death Panels. The quality of life for a 85+ yr-old isn't great so spending an inordinate amount of money the last 6-months because "you" can't face death is rediculous.

      Realistically, there should be levels of care balanced w/ a quality of life metric.

      Baseline - all annual checkups - covered, that means dental too.

      1st in line - Traumatic life threating types. 85+year old gunshot victim, sure treat them, but they don't get weeks in ICU.
      2nd - non-optional items, transplants etc. younger you are more in front. Ageism! 85+ dude doesn't need his 3rd heart transplant.
      3rd - optional but quality of life affecting - other items that wont kill you but make it extremely hard to live. bariactric bands, sex change ?
      4th - optional - this might be a 1/2 n 1/2, but certain cosmetic surgery that doesn't fall w/in the 3rd band. "facelift", yea, you pay out of pocket.

    12. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Passman · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is the way healthcare is billed in this country.

      If I go in and see a doctor, I'm billed for an office visit. If I get a flu shot, which I'm supposed to do every year given my underlying medical conditions, it's a separate billable expense. Take a test, that's another bill. Xray? Another bill.

      Maybe we should treat the patient as a whole, rather than as a series of billable events?

      --
      Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
    13. Re:The Bake Sale Model by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Even the non-insurance costs are so high as to be unaffordable for most people. Health insurance isn't like car insurance, where most people won't ever cause much damage and so prices are low. Most people will have some kind of expensive illness in their life. About 40% of people in developed nations will have some kind of cancer alone.

      Obviously society also has a stake in general healthcare, as we have seen recently in areas where vaccination rates are low.

      It's also in societies interests to ensure that people have access to things like mental healthcare, lest they become criminally insane. It's not just the availability of guns that leads to the US having so many people go on killing sprees, it's the lack of access to mental healthcare that could have treated them first.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Illegals often work for cash and don't pay income tax. They also live 5 working adults in a 1br apartment.

      Actually,most working Americans cannot save 30k in 5 years, because taxes and rent too high.

      Don't give us this "don't tell me you can't... Bullshit", until you know someone in the situation.

    15. Re:The Bake Sale Model by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      No. Way. You want to hand over healthcare to the same brain trust whose last pass was essentially "We're going to make health care more affordable by making more people buy it." Anyone who ever took Econ 101 could tell you that wouldn't work, and it hasn't.

    16. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that get tricky though if you Include monetary incentives for timely treatment then the hospitals will prioritize speed over all else including quality of care. you might see a doctor quick but he will be incentivized to give you a quick diagnosis and not look to thoroughly into your situation. wrong diagnosis's will go up.

    17. Re:The Bake Sale Model by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BTW I agree, but was using it to get to a point: A free market solution (using real costs) can't work if you can't refuse to do business based on that price.

      And that's one of the reasons why health care has no place in the Free Market.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    18. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, and have the US join the rest of the civilized world? Preposterous.

      Better to have tons of GoFundMe begging, which is the American way, in our new Gilded Age.

    19. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it has for the majority of people impacted, which was exactly the point.

    20. Re: The Bake Sale Model by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether this is true or not, but running an MRI is Expensive. The rate you quote (Medicare cost) wouldn't cover the real expense of running an MRI office. And that is the problem: Medicare doesn't cover the real cost and the cost is thus shifted to private insurances.

      The US government NEVER covers the real cost of anything: research has to be subsidized by student tuition, medical has to be subsidized by private insurance, public utilities are subsidized by private companies levying bills.

      And yes, there are plenty of companies (utility companies and insurances alike) exploiting this and skimming off the top (forcing HIPAA, eRecords compliance) by asking more public resources (right of ways, enforcement) and then any losses are paid for by the ever diminishing middle class.

      My suggestion is either for the government to get completely out of the game (because they suck at providing hybrids - You aren't covered by Obamacare if you make more than minimum wage but unless you make >120k private insurance is unaffordable) or go all in and provide full coverage - this would require reduction in military expense and higher taxes though.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    21. Re:The Bake Sale Model by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Has it? I must have misunderstood all those stories about rates going up so much this year.

      The ACA got a lot of people health insurance that they didn't have to pay for. Net societal good? Sure. I'd like to see everybody covered. The ACA utterly failed to do anything about actual healthcare costs. What we very much don't need is a world where everybody's covered, and we can all go see our doctor (for $300 for a 10 minute visit), but we only pay a $20 copay, then freak out because our taxes are so high. All the ACA did is funnel more tax dollars into the pipe.

      The question of paying for health insurance out of your pocket, your payroll, or your taxes is a shell game. The problem is not where it's being paid from, it's that we're paying too much for it.

    22. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can get a binding quote from my insurance. There's paper work involved, but it can be done. I have to get the procedure codes, give it to the insurance, get the itemized costs from the doctor's office, and I can get a price for those exact itemized costs, of how much I will need to pay when all is said and done. Changes to the itemization, which happens, are calculated separately. Not worth the time.

    23. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are not mutually exclusive.

    24. Re: The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have many neighbors who are illegals. They can afford to get a house because they're willing to live assess to elbows. And because banks were willing to loan obscene amounts for little down, on people with zero credit history.

    25. Re:The Bake Sale Model by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Of course separate events are separate billable events. None of those other things are free. They cost someone money. They might not even be something that your local pill pusher can handle himself. Lab work is an obvious example.

      Even if they were all handled as a single invoice, accountability and auditing would require that they can all be broken out individually.

      EOBs are kind of crap already. They need to be MORE detailed rather than less.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    26. Re:The Bake Sale Model by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      As an actual patient, I am less concerned about getting a bargain. I want access to the best care possible. I want the latest bleeding edge treatments and overpriced miracle cures. Those things don't happen without economic incentives. Gutting the US medical system will destroy those incentives and harm EVERY PATIENT ON THE PLANET including the socialist ones that brag about stiffing American drug companies.

      I don't want to eat dirt. I don't want cheap junk for less. I want the best. If we're paying more than the rest of the world then so be it. Put it in the same category as spending too much on aircraft carriers. I'm fine with carrying the rest of the world on our shoulders. At least sh*t gets done.

      Yeah, the high premiums suck. I like to complain about them too. Our current system (warts and all) means a much better prognosis for the 3 year old with the brain tumor than some socialist utopia that would displace it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re:The Bake Sale Model by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I really don't think you do, but hey, it's your dollar. Do what you want with it.

      Personally, I get most of my healthcare from a world-class medical institution, but sometimes I really don't want the best care possible. I had a paronychia (infection around the fingernail that was bugging me). I *could* have gone to my $300 doctor. I could have gone to the ER, which arguably has even better doctors, but with a wait and a $2,000 bill for walking in the door. I went to Minute Clinic. Retail cost: $89. I still just paid my copay, but it made me happy that I didn't overpay for no reason.

      I think most people are full of it when they say they want the "best possible" anything without regard to cost. When you actually show people the cost, they change their tune.

      I'm not at all for gutting our current medical system, and a capitalist to the core, I love financial incentives. Still, there are some abuses that need to be curbed and people need to stop asking "How can I get someone else to pay for this for me?" and start asking "Why is it so expensive to begin with?". I know for a fact there's a test my expensive provider bills $200 more than a retail provider, where it's something like $20. Exact same test, done the exact same way. The difference? My expensive provider is part of a big medical institute, and you're allowed to bill more for that test "in a hospital setting", even if the patient got the test at his regular, routine doctor's appointment a walk-in clinic.

      Sometimes you're not paying for quality or incentivizing innovation. You're just paying more because there's a complicated, opaque system that lets them charge you more.

    28. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a single payer you need to insure that we have growth in our health care infrastructure to meet the demand, and allow competition across health care systems to make sure they are invested on increasing improvements to their methods.

      That's easy. We take the money used to hire bureaucrats at all levels public and private (including collections departments) and redirect it to ensuring the capability exists to service patients.

      Until you have seen it for yourself, you do not know the truly staggering amount of money wasted on bureaucrats to ensure that the "wrong people" don't get a free lunch. The USA doesn't pay as much as it does because its level of care is #1 in the world, but because of all the unnecessary paperwork, qualification guidelines for different programs, special charity programs, payment processing (granted, with single payer, there would still need to be numbers available on what's costing what), contract negotiations, advertisement not just for drugs but hospitals advertising, etc, etc.

      Frankly, that is the most horrifyingly cruel part of the USA's system: the amount of money spent on the superficial appearance of a free market instead of actually delivering health care.

      But it's a deeply embedded part of the USA's culture. Too many people in the USA would rather impoverish themselves with bureaucracy than see somebody get a free lunch they didn't deserve. It's even worse with the ACA. Now "those people" who don't deserve a free lunch include transgendered and homosexual demographics, even when they're trying to throw more than enough money at the chef who's too busy religiously objecting because he thinks he'll go to hell if he makes that meal. Oh, but he'll take the money since there's no way for somebody who's been religiously objected to opt out of the ACA. He just won't make the meal.

      I mean, seriously, this is a problem for the USA. I recently was able to find a doctor who would see me out of state. Now both my insurance company and that office are currently wasting time going back and forth about whether the appointment will be covered. I assumed I'd need to pay cash, but they said there might be a chance my insurance will be accepted. Nobody knows anything for sure! How the hell is this a free market?! I mean, I probably will end up paying cash, but it would be nice if it at least counted towards my deductible or something. My insurance can't possibly be entirely and utterly useless, can it?

      I don't care. I've got mine now. Fuck the USA, insurance companies, and religious objection!ers. If the system the USA wanted is willing to waste more than the cost of the office visit determining whether or not the visit will be covered, fuck 'em. Maybe I personally come out $100 or $200 or so ahead, maybe not.

    29. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heresy! I've spotted the communist! *grin*

    30. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a non-profit health insurance and they cover preventatives 100%. They classify a lot of random stuff as preventative. Example. Technically they only support 2 yearly office visits 100%, then there's a 20% co-pay. But my wife thought she had an issue, went in a 3rd time, and they covered it 100% as "preventative". My wife got an MRI and they argued that it was not preventative in this case because it was not recommended by a doctor, so they only covered it 90%. Mind you non-preventatives are only covered 80% until you meet your deductible, which we were no where near.

      $20k surgery that I had that the doctor said technically I didn't need? Covered it 100%. Had to make sure that wasn't an error. They seem to wave most co-pays. Except drugs. $5.

      Midwest USA

    31. Re:The Bake Sale Model by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > I really don't think you do, but hey, it's your dollar. Do what you want with it.

      You have no clue what I want. You can't possibly relate because you haven't actually been there. You're just a hysterical spectator.

      I can tell because you start out with the assumption that the ER is the best option.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    32. Re:The Bake Sale Model by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Can we talk about side effects and mitigation strategies before we dive in?

      I posted this comment without bothering to log in (also didn't want to imply that the place I was able to find healthcare at is any less than perfect and wonderful, because it is). You're correct to point out that the economy will be hugely impacted. It's simply because of the number of bureaucrats who will be out of a job.

      Relevant snippet:

      Until you have seen it for yourself, you do not know the truly staggering amount of money wasted on bureaucrats to ensure that the "wrong people" don't get a free lunch. The USA doesn't pay as much as it does because its level of care is #1 in the world, but because of all the unnecessary paperwork, qualification guidelines for different programs, special charity programs, payment processing (granted, with single payer, there would still need to be numbers available on what's costing what), contract negotiations, advertisement not just for drugs but hospitals advertising, etc, etc.

      Frankly, that is the most horrifyingly cruel part of the USA's system: the amount of money spent on the superficial appearance of a free market instead of actually delivering health care.

      I don't know I have a solution that will make everybody happy, but the way I figure it, to not completely crash the economy when switching to single payer, we'll also need to either greatly expand unemployment into a long-term retraining program or implement a universal basic income.

      (For the latter option, we can also abolish the minimum wage and probably a lot of other worker protections since they would no longer be necessary... keep the safety regulations, though. Also obviates all of the menagerie of half redundant patchwork welfare programs. Bring on the flood of unemployed bureaucrats!)

      Unfortunately, either of those ideas causes too many temporarily embarrassed millionaires to have shit fits.

    33. Re:The Bake Sale Model by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      In other words, you want the gold-plated system that you think will work best for you—as you claim not to care about costs—and you don't care how many others must be deprived of the more reasonable levels of care which they could actually afford to get it.

      It's not often that you see someone deliberately out themselves publically as a self-centered sociopath, but I do commend you for your honesty.

      This isn't an argument for the one-size-fits-all socialist solution. Both options should be available. If all you can afford is the back-alley physician offering hand-mixed medication only marginally more likely to heal you than to make your condition worse, there shouldn't be anyone standing in your way of getting that treatment. (If someone wants to offer you a better option out of their own resources, of course, that's fine too.) On the other hand, if you can afford top-notch care from the finest doctors and are willing to spend the money, no one should interfere with that, either.

      The single-payer system doesn't take away the cost; it just redistributes it less fairly. If you make an average income and require the average amount of medical care over the course of your life you'll end up paying just as much in the end, in the form of taxes and/or inflation rather than health care. What it does eliminate, however, is choice. When someone else is being billed for your treatment, the level and type of care you qualify for becomes their decision, not yours.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    34. Re:The Bake Sale Model by ewibble · · Score: 1

      I was quoted one price before and then presented with a bill for 5 times that later.

      In that case only pay the original quote. I don't know about America, but for any contract in NZ there needs to be "a meeting of minds", that means both parties have to be aware of there obligations at the time contract was made. When you went in for the operation you where under the impression that it would cost "x" and it costs "5x" then you are under no obligation to pay. That is if you got a "quote" not an "estimate", but even then they should give you a cost per hour etc.

      Of course if the quote is in writing you have a much better chance of winning.

      Note I am not a lawyer.

      Here is an article on American contract law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    35. Re:The Bake Sale Model by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Those things don't happen without economic incentives.

      What are these economic incentives you speak of?

      I didn't choose my insurer. My employer did. My only choice is take it or leave it with the caveat that I also don't qualify for subsidies because my employer offers insurance.

      I didn't choose which doctors and hospitals my insurer works with.

      I have no idea what the cost of any of the services I need are ahead of time anywhere. I can't even make a free market choice on routine services, much less if I have a heart attack. If that happens, I don't care what the cost of saving my life is, I want my life saved, so that's not a free market choice.

      Also the last time I called up a hospital and said, "I have perfectly routine and easily treatable condition $x. Please, take my money!" I got "religious objeciton!" So I tried again at a different hospital. "Please, take my money!" and got the runaround. Apparently they're still pissed at my employer and I'm still on somebody's shit list for denying women health care. So I went to my insurer's website and tried again, except every last doctor was affiliated with either of those two hospitals.

      I still have to pay for this useless insurance, because the penalty is greater than the annual premiums as of 2014. It also costs me, in my 40 mpg fuel-efficient car, roughly $30-$40 round trip to see my regular doctor.

      As far as I can tell, the USA's healthcare system looks exactly like the horror stories I keep reading about "socialist utopias" from people who like attacking that strawman.

      Are you really suggesting that no R&D will happen with single payer?

      I guess in your world, the USA never landed a man on the moon.

    36. Re:The Bake Sale Model by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Wait, how do you know I haven't been "there" and where is there, anyway?

      I never said the ER is the best option. I said they have better doctors. It's often a bad option because it's expensive and you might wait a long time. I base that on working in medical research in a hospital for over a decade, as well as being a veteran of at least 50 ER trips. I've had quite a lot of interaction with the medical field, and some exposure to the billing side. Not a lot, but some. Based on that I stand by my opinion that the average primary care doc is better than the nurse at the minute clinic (though I did have one knucklehead of a PCP once, but that's another story), and the ER docs are better than the average primary care doc. In my experience, neonatal intensive care is the best, but unless you're a baby, that's not available to you.

      FWIW, I'm actually pretty relaxed about the issue. I think it'd help us ever actually get anything done if people would stop hyperventilating about getting someone else to pay for it and start asking if it's priced fairly.

    37. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.

      Who uses real costs for anything? I mean, is cell service at "real costs"

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    38. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      And that's part of the core of the problem.The standard market mechanisms break down far too easily when it comes to something that is not only life or death, but also immediate. At a minimum, health insurance should not be for-profit, because the profit motives there are decidedly negative towards a good system that works to serve the community. We can try to pass laws to prevent those negative outcomes, but it's like choosing to ride a tiger while passing laws that tell the tiger it can't eat you. The tiger is still busy looking for any way it can to eat you once it thinks it can get away with it. We'd be much better riding a horse - or even a donkey. Sure, a donkey is obnoxious and ornery, and possibly lazy, but its ultimate purpose is not to eat you.

      It's much the same with single-payer government insurance versus for-profit insurance. Sure, government run insurance won't be the most efficient or fast, but a for-profit company isn't looking to funnel those efficiencies to you the consumer, it's going to go to profits whereever they can manage it.

    39. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really this is just further evidence that the US model of privatized health-care is extremely broken.

      Per-capita health-care expenditures in the US are nearly double that of nations like Canada, Germany, and France, which provide a much more thorough fundamental level of coverage to ALL citizens.

    40. Re:The Bake Sale Model by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I have a better, better idea.

      1. Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.

      So true. Real world example: My wife was diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor (GBM - Glioblastoma Multiforme) the day before Thanksgiving 2005 and died seven weeks later on Jan 13, 2006. One of her chemotherapy medications was Temodar. According to the pharmacist, the list price for a one-month supply of pills was $11,000. The co-pay using my BC/BS would have been $1,100 (10%) and the copay using her Optima HMO was $35.

      As for her seven-weeks of hospital and doctors' bills, we paid less than $500 total in co-pays. I was able to see the billed vs. negotiated insurance payments on the Optima website and the negotiated rates were substantially lower. I'm not complaining personally, but if the hospital and doctors can accept the negotiated rates, why can't they simply charge that much in the first place? Does the "write-off" count as a tax deduction?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    41. Re:The Bake Sale Model by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      What it does eliminate, however, is choice. When someone else is being billed for your treatment, the level and type of care you qualify for becomes their decision, not yours.

      Is there any reason private insurance companies won't still exist with single payer? Their profits and customer base will be much smaller, that's for sure.

      Single payer usually doesn't cover any transgender services outside of meds that I'm aware of, yet somehow trans men and women still manage to find medical services in single payer systems.

      Personally, I've got the worst of both worlds. I'm legally required to hold insurance, but because of circumstances beyond my control, I cannot get any services locally and have to go to providers that my insurance doesn't cover.

      Normally I would say the solution is to just prevent companies from offering health insurance as a benefit and let health insurance companies compete the same way car insurance companies do. But here comes the ACA! I mean, if we're going to do socialized medicine, and it looks like there's no going back now, we need to do it right and not half-assed.

    42. Re: The Bake Sale Model by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      You might want to read again, this part:

      "I have friends who are illegal aliens working for minimum wage (and paying federal income taxes)"

      They have tax ids and they pay all income taxes. They were living 4 in their apartment while they saved for years (that's mom, dad, two kids). They now have mom's brother in the house while he's in school and a cousin living in a separate apartment that was part of the house when they bought it (used to be the garage).

      So, yes, don't bother telling me you can't.

      To them, this is the land of opportunity. To the looney lefter, it's the land of inequality.

    43. Re:The Bake Sale Model by budgenator · · Score: 1

      They're withholding 15% from our paychecks now to cover the cost after age 65, cradle to grave would cost how much?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    44. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that, as the primary mission of every insurance company in the country is to make money - not to provide coverage for the patient (as that costs money)

      Which is why it's maddening when insurance is referred to as "access to health care", when it's actually the greatest instrument for making health care inaccessible in the first place.

      But selling the American populace to the insurance industry is going to fix everything. Any day now, just wait.

      Captcha: indolent

    45. Re:The Bake Sale Model by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills.

      So if your going to sell your house do you expect to get the asking price? You might want to say "Hey Doc. if I pay cash, what kind of a courtesy can you give me?", He should give 20% without to much haggling since care credit and lending club hit him with around 10-15% discount anyway. Of course you can always do care credit and lending club and get 2 years interest free.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    46. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean involuntary tax payer funded government doled out medical care? Yeah, uh, no.

    47. Re:The Bake Sale Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many hospitals in the early years were charities. Charities were the domain of churches. Ever notice how many hospitals in the US have a name of a church in them? Just another example of what happens when the separation of church and state is violated. Government has turned the hospital into a business. Most people think of separation of church and state only going one direction. It seems to me plenty of damage happens the other direction too (cycle of poverty because of government programs).

  3. What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I CAN'T keep my insurance plan even though I like it?!?!?!

    I CAN'T keep my doctor even though I like him??!?!!?

    Obamacare is NOT saving money?

    Obamacare is NOT making healthcare cheaper?

    Damn - we were LIED to!

    On EVERYTHING Obamacare was supposed to do.

    The only one who didn't lie was Nancy Pelosi when she said they had to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.

    Or more accurately, where it'd be stuffed into us - BEND OVER while the insurance companies get all kinds of legally-forced new customers and bailout provisions...

    1. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I vote mostly Republican. ACA did fix a bunch of stuff that really needed fixing. The only part of ACA that ever made any promises of making health care cheaper was the stupid title. So, I'm not feeling lied to about ACA.
      The real thing that gets me is that the Democrats won't admit this is the hardest thing they've ever laid on the middle class. They are riding so high on the impending destruction of the Republican party that they don't get that something will replace it because they've laid such a heavy burden on the middle class. Not a one is interested in talking about how to fix it because I'm "a racist and want to shoot poor people in the street." Hell, Hilary is talking about doing away with the Cadillac tax because the unions don't like it, so I can't imagine this plan getting easier. For two years straight I've had to reduce my retirement contribution to pay for my health care increases. Yes I care about the percentage of coverage for the whole nation, but you can't stick your fingers in your ears when I tell you that someone who makes 100k a year is having to take from retirement savings to pay for the changes to his healthcare.

    2. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      From what I understand, it wasn't so much about making healthcare actually cheaper, so much as slowing the projected rate of increase from "Ludicrous" to merely "Ridiculous" or less.

      Actually making it cheaper would probably have required a lot of things that were just not politically feasible at the time (like single payer/Medicare for all), considering how difficult even the messy patchwork of fixes that comprise the ACA/Obamacare was to get passed to begin with.

    3. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I meant to add but forgot: Republicans need to stop using the wording Obamacare. It makes your complaints about it sound partisan. I'd encourage you to start referring to it as the "Affordable" Care Act. If you are ever going to do away with it you are going to have to get some visibility on how difficult it is for those people who had insurance previously.

    4. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are riding so high on the impending destruction of the Republican party

      You morons have been saying this for decades.

      Since Obama took office Democrats have lost:
      ** 14 Senate seats
      ** 69 House seats
      ** 12 governorships
      ** 910 state legislature seats.

      But, Sanders! or something.

    5. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Republicans need to stop using the wording Obamacare.

      But sticking to that name makes it easier to then say "we replaced Obamacare with Ryancare", and try to convince people that there was an important difference between the two. So far, every "alternative" to the ACA that has been proposed by a sitting congressperson has been >90% similar in action to the ACA; most of them differing only in whose name would be on it. Otherwise if they were honest enough to say that they want to spend billions of dollars to repeal the ACA, then pass the ACA again, people wouldn't get excited about it or vote for them.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the mean while the UK government is planning to remove our "medicare for all" by privatising the NHS.

      republican/conservative both the same shitty "fuck you", i'm rich bastards

    7. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I said I vote mostly Republican. I'm looking for Democrats to address the things that led up to all the things you mentioned. If they are as smart as they claim they are there should be some good Democrat answers, but all I get is personal attacks.
      For you, if you don't see the Tea Party and Donald Trump's popularity as the end of what the Republican party was, can you at least admit that the Republican party following the Presidential election will be very different than what it has been for some time?

    8. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians have completely lost sway in the Republican party. All the liberals who wanted their influence gone can dance their happy dance and find the unintended consequences as the only people with any sort of compassion no longer hold enough power to sway the party. They have been replaced by anti-government nationalistic zealots.

    9. Re: What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insurance companies screwed us over because they knew congress was in conflict, so they took advantage. Obama forced it through as a political token, but ACA needs major renegotiation, Bernie Sanders wants to fix it. Have not heard any Republican plans to do so yet.

    10. Re: What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I heard Bernie is in the replace boat with the Republicans. Granted, his replacement plan is worlds different from the Republican choices but I wouldn't label it as "renegotiating" ACA. Hilary is the only one who has suggested any changes. Her changes were to drop some of the financial burden from the Unions to buy some votes, with the rest of us footing the bill.

    11. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done at the Federal Level?

      Again to quote a prior AC
      "You morons have been saying this for decades.

      Since Obama took office Democrats have lost:
      ** 14 Senate seats
      ** 69 House seats
      ** 12 governorships
      ** 910 state legislature seats."

      Exactly how is that "Done at the Federal level"?

    12. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are riding so high on the impending destruction of the Republican party

      You morons have been saying this for decades.

      Since Obama took office Democrats have lost:
      ** 14 Senate seats
      ** 69 House seats
      ** 12 governorships
      ** 910 state legislature seats.

      But, Sanders! or something.

      Yawn. Check out the gerrymandering on the state legislatures and house seats.

      Or just look at the number of people who voted for Democrats versus Republicans in House elections. 35 million Democrats, 40 million Republicans in 2014. In 2012? It was 59 million for Democrats, 58 million for Republicans.

      There's a story there, if you look at numbers that really matter. And some states won't last as they are.

      Check out Virginia and Florida, both having maps redrawn. Too obviously Gerrymandered in Virginia, and didn't meet the state's constitution in Florida. North Carolina is even worse. It voted for Obama in 2008, and was close in 2012. Yet somehow its representation is only 3 Democrats?

      It makes the Republican party seem strong, but it's a weakness.

      That said, the Democratic Party has its problems, but they aren't what you think. People don't run with Obama, they run along side him. And he's not a standard-bearer type, he's too intellectual, so they don't feel obligated to run along, and then they lose, they still blame him anyway.

      Bernie MIGHT be able to do it. Hillary, I'm not sure about. She's a technocrat through and through, a compromiser, not a ideologue.

    13. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Or they could call it what it is, 'Romneycare.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    14. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Nah. My rates went up even faster. Then all of the decent private plans that existed in my state all got wiped out.

      It's a shame that the Democrats didn't try to directly address the problems rather than trying to re-engineer the entire system. One obvious problem was the lack of will to have an actual Obamacare tax. Instead they created this horrible "individual mandate" president.

      They gutted a number of well functioning state systems in the process. If the GOP does manage to get the ACA revoked, the collateral damage from that will be staggering.

      It will be something along the lines of removing a grappling hook from someone. The damage coming out will be immense.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is what the left has wanted for decades. Now they have it.

    16. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A prior AC who posted information, however true, without a real presentation of data.

      Or did you not notice how none of those are elected across the nation, but on a state-by-state basis.

      You could get almost half of those state legislative seats from New Hampshire alone. Not that they did, but the point is, you have no idea about the distribution.

      This is as bad as when Mitt Romney was barking over the US Navy having fewer ships than after WW1, or the US Air Force having the fewest planes since WW2.

      Whatever, it's just noise, no matter how true, it doesn't give a good enough data point to act upon.

      Or do you want to put the entire post-WW1 US Navy against even a single Carrier Battlegroup?

    17. Re: What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie claims to want to make changes to ACA and build upon it, not remove it.

      The only person saying he wants to remove it is Hilliary and the media that is on her side...

    18. Re:What?!?! Obamacare didn't fix US healthcare? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I generally call it "the largest corporate handout in the history of government". That is a bit of a mouthful so sometimes instead I call it "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010", or "HIIBA 2010", for short.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. Just have medicare for all and get rid of the over by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just have medicare for all and get rid of the overpriced priced bills that have A single aspirin for $25

  5. "$40 billion in bad debt" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it ever occur to you, that before the figures are tallied up, they are already vastly over inflated to what the rest of the world pays for medical products and services?

    It is a sorry state of affairs when people have to effectively beg for money to not be crippled by medical debt. The rich can go wherever they want, the middle class barely scrape by and the poorer people never stand a chance in such a system.

    1. Re:"$40 billion in bad debt" by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      The problem causes some (not all, mind you, just some) of the price inflation.

      Hospital writes off millions in uncollectable charges, has to increase charges on future patients to cover the loss, causing more future patients to be unable to pay the charges.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re: "$40 billion in bad debt" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point like so many others. Capitalism is great, but everything needs to have limits. Hospitals do treat the most vulnerable in society, aka people who are ill. You should not be allowing companies to profit off the misfortune of others in the health arena. Again, the rest of the civilised world has realised this but corporate interests in America have taken the control away from people.

  6. Still ignoring the issue by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem isn't that these people got sick. It's that they have incurred these radical medical bills as a result of contracts between the hospitals and the insurance companies to intentionally drive up the prices. This is the definition of collusion and for the insurance companies it borders on racketeering. Every hospital in the US is just as guilty as every medical insurance broker and until we call them on their shit you're only going to make things worse by enabling them.

    But who cares as long as you can go to bed feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, right?

    1. Re:Still ignoring the issue by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But who cares as long as you can go to bed feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, right?

      You don't even want to see the cost of the tests they do when you come in with those symptoms.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Still ignoring the issue by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Inflation adjusted cost for having a baby was about 1000$ in the 60s.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Still ignoring the issue by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      Infant mortality rate was also about 600% higher then too. (Source:Humanprogress.org)

    4. Re:Still ignoring the issue by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      This hits close but one of the targets is off the mark. It is colusion between the drug companies and the insurance providers that catches the hospitals in the middle. Every year the price of every drug goes up by 10-15% and the hospital can't do a damned thing except budget for more drug increases. What else can they do? Let their patients die? Because the drug and insurance companies sure as hell will throw a few patients over board to pressure the hospitals.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    5. Re:Still ignoring the issue by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, I usually see this exact statement posted as an argument against the kind of thing I just posted. But I would suspect that, as a non-AC, you've actually done a cursory google search and found that it's actually an argument in favor of the point I'm trying to make: http://www.whattoexpect.com/pr...

    6. Re:Still ignoring the issue by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was supporting your point. Disaster only health insurance makes sense if you could pay for common procedures out of pocket. Also the profit caps on insurers actually give them a perverse incentive to drive up costs- the only way to grow their business is to increase subscribers or gross amounts on claims. There are myriad issues for the high cost of medical care and they are rarely discussed.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:Still ignoring the issue by avandesande · · Score: 1

      And many mothers drank and smoked, and there was a complete lack of prenatal care. I should have added the footnote that this price was for a childbirth without complications... I doubt these contribute much to the infant mortality figures.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  7. Medical debt... by bcware · · Score: 1

    OR we could simply give everyone free primary care. At the local clinic it cost me about $100-120 cash to see a physician (less for a PA or NP). This isn't some no-name crap clinic either; this is an ivy league affiliated institution. Where do people with no money or bad credit go for care? That's right, the emergency room where walking in the door with a runny nose costs $500-1000. This is where a great deal of that bad medical debt that gets written off comes from. I could go on forever but I'll give myself an aneurysm... we have so much administrative overhead and middle men it's ridiculous.

    1. Re:Medical debt... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      But isn't that the problem, if you get rid of the middle men and the vast bureaucracy of handling claims across multiple insurers, billing etc. then 70% of the jobs are lost.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    2. Re:Medical debt... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      So what would you rather have, a health-care system at the expense of some unneeded jobs, or a jobs-creation system at the expense of much-needed healthcare?

      Or are you advocating for FDR style programs to employ Americans?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Medical debt... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have the efficient healthcare system - but I can see the people losing their jobs putting up a fight and some of them are likely to be influential.

      --
      Nullius in verba
  8. Interesting Concept by organgtool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this is an interesting concept, I can't help but feel like this props up our predatory privatized health system which focuses more on profits than it does on treatment. If we're all going to pay for each other's medical bills via private insurance and crowdfunding, why not change to a public system rather than expect sick people to become beggars of their family and friends?

    1. Re:Interesting Concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key being choice. People want to be able to choose who to give money to, and not be forced to pay for "others". You know, the minorities, the leechers, the welfare queens.

  9. Only in the US... :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only in the US would something like this be required.

    Please pick one of the healthcare models here in Europe instead - around here we don't consider the value of a person's life to be based on how rich they are.

    1. Re: Only in the US... :-( by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      around here we don't consider the value of a person's life to be based on how rich they are.

      I spent most of a decade working at a big medical center near the northern US border. So many [wealthy] Canadians.

      But, yeah, the US prices have gone nuts since the HMO Act of 1973. Here's an Emergency Room doc talking about how bad it is and offering some solutions .

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Only in the US... :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only in the US would something like this be required.

      Please pick one of the healthcare models here in Europe instead - around here we don't consider the value of a person's life to be based on how rich they are.

      Amen.

      And what baffles us Europeans even more is that the Americans who fight the hardest against this kind of thing are typically the same ones who call themselves Christians.

    3. Re:Only in the US... :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean, the ones who fight the hardest on this are the ones who want Christians to vote for them and keep them in office.

    4. Re:Only in the US... :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and supported by the idiots who are 1 broken bone away from bankruptcy even if they have insurance!!!!

  10. $6 billion is spent on cards and flowers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's around $18 per man/woman/child in the U.S. I think someone is exaggerating to help their cause.

    1. Re: $6 billion is spent on cards and flowers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land of the free and home of the wantonly profligate.

    2. Re: $6 billion is spent on cards and flowers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And also setting the value of those things to zero. I can't help but notice he's trying to get the hospitals paid their over-inflated bills.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why I love living in the UK and will defend the NHS until my death.

    Here in the UK I don't have to worry about the cost of my healthcare, and if I want it quicker or I want a nicer bed then I always have the option of paying privately anyway.

    This is also why Jeremy Hunt can fuck off and keep his slimy mitts to himself.

  12. no need for crowdfunding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or you could get with the rest of the civilized world and not have health care a for profit venture.

    1. Re:no need for crowdfunding by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Right, because slaves give such good medical care. I am pretty sure that every country allows medical professionals to charge more than the cost of the products they provide.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:no need for crowdfunding by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      Do a little research, like watch this documentary: http://freedocumentaries.org/d...

      Health care professionals in Britain, France, and other countries are not slaves. They are not living in giant mansions, but they live quite comfortably.

      And please, stop your spewing of statements with nothing backing them up. It gives the impression you hate your life or haven't grown up yet.

    3. Re:no need for crowdfunding by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, they make a profit.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  13. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "BUTBUTBUT THAT'S SOCIALIST!"
    -Every freedumtard ever.

    Socialist healthcare is provably better in every single way.
    Fact is, there is no private healthcare model in the top 10.
    All of them are socialist healthcare systems.

  14. wow! how broken is not that country?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow! i never sease to be amazed at how broken USA is.. that you have to crowdfund when you get cancer... and now someone figured out how to make 7,5% extra of this. they cud have kept it at 2% atleast or something.

  15. Where's my money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the card and flower vendors might have something to say about this plan

  16. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This wouldn't be as big of an issue if you people didn't rise up in arms against "Obama care". Oh and the fact that your dumbsh*t politicians are in the pockets of the big pharma so they don't regulate the price of stuff...

  17. big numbers not so big. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    It appears that the healthcare industry takes in over 3 trillion a year. 40 billion is what 1.3 percent? Maybe I missed a zero or something but it doesn't sound like it is a terribly big problem.

    1. Re:big numbers not so big. by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Indeed, and it's necessary to factor in the huge percent of the unpaid medical bills that belong to people forced to wait until their symptoms are bad enough to be seen be an emergency room... the health care program of too many Americans.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:big numbers not so big. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      It isn't evenly distributed, and it isn't the only loss in the system.

      The goal and result of the last 50 years of tinkering has been to completely destroy the pricing system in medicine. No one in any part of the system has any idea of what anything costs. That includes patients, doctors, nurses, administrators, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, etc.

      Be extremely skeptical of any dollar figures you see related to mainstream medicine. None of them have any connection to reality.

      Doctors are increasingly opting out of the system and working strictly for cash. Those doctors are surprisingly cheap, partly because they have very little administrative overhead, and partly because they have price signals in both directions that guide them towards efficiency.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  18. Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a Web site that lists the hospital's prices for each procedure and their doctor's malpractice record so people can shop around for the best price?

    1. Re:Sounds about right by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      People do not have an incentive to shop around so long as insurance is covering it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do not have an incentive to shop around so long as insurance is covering it.

      Mostly true. "Boutique medicine" is something I'm seeing more and more though. These medical facilities post cash prices for common procedures, say for a knee replacement, which in many cases is less than your insurance co-payment/deductible.

  19. Why is this even necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we even need this? First, everyone has insurance now. That's the Law, dammit. A Law that we fought hard for. Second, healthcare is affordable. That's also the Law. It's right there in the title: The *Affordable* Care Act.

    I call this whole thing another BS profit move by the big greedy hospitals and wealthy doctors.

  20. Costs can be lowered by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Americans pay more for drugs than do most people around the world... that is indifferent to subsides.

    FDA regulations to say nothing of bans on imports of foreign drugs inflate American prices.

    Beyond that, a huge portion of hospital bills do not go to doctors or medicine or medical equipment. A huge portion goes to administration. Simplifying medical paper work and streamlining hospital labor could radically lower costs.

    We have test cases where shift nurses bypassed most of this stuff which had a dramatic impact on costs.

    Hospital bills are going up faster than inflation for the SAME treatment. You can't blame this on insurance companies because the costs are if anything even higher for those without insurance. The costs are high because the hospitals are billing at those rates.

    Get the costs where they should be and the bills will be affordable - period.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Costs can be lowered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans pay more for drugs than do most people around the world.

      that is because we allow the drug companies to charge whatever they want. look at mr. shkrelli for an example of that; he knows that the power is in the hands of the pharma companies.

      FDA regulations to say nothing of bans on imports of foreign drugs inflate American prices.

      FDA regulations only ensure that the drugs that physicians prescribe here are safe and tested. if you want to go buy questionable antibiotics from mexico because you think you might have an infection, you can go do that. if you think that cod liver oil will cure that lump in your nut sack, the FDA won't stop you from trying that either.

      Simplifying medical paper work and streamlining hospital labor could radically lower costs.

      but why is there so much paper work? the paper work exists largely because of all the insurance company requirements. hospital staff train for long periods of time on how to properly fill out the papers to get the insurance companies to reimburse at required rates; if the paperwork has to be filled out twice because someone initialled the wrong box, that increases the hospital costs. if all new paperwork has to be processed because someone came in with some obscure policy from 4 states away, that is even worse for costs.

      We have test cases where shift nurses bypassed most of this stuff which had a dramatic impact on costs.

      nurses actually do very little paperwork by hand in modern american hospitals; most of what used to be their paperwork is now digital. the paperwork that takes the most time, however, is not for the nurses to do at all, the billing is handled by a different department entirely.

      The costs are high because the hospitals are billing at those rates.

      no, the costs are high because the hospitals have to bring in additional staff to shoulder the bureaucratic burden of the american insurance system.

    2. Re:Costs can be lowered by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The drug companies can change whatever they want anywhere in the world.

      Your notion of "but but but they have single payer!!!"... yeah and the drug company doesn't have to change that price.

      What is more, the single payer countries generally negotiate a price for the whole country. Prices are less being dictated by your magical solution to everything and more are simply being negotiated by your health systems.

      Regardless, if you opened the US up to the global market, then US drug prices would fall without having to tell anyone what they had to charge.

      What is more, your example of that company price fixing... bad example... they were bypassed by a rival drug almost immediately thus negating the whole venture. That is basically a text book example of the free market slapping that aside instantly.

      As to your strawman that because I don't like a given organization I would instead prefer anarchy... THIS is why I don't generally talk to ACs. You're shitheads to a man apparently. Either make an honest argument or don't waste the time of sensible people with your idiocy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Costs can be lowered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much what India said.

      And then did.

    4. Re:Costs can be lowered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to your strawman that because I don't like a given organization I would instead prefer anarchy.

      and who said that? I went back through the previous AC comment and never saw them accusing you of being an anarchist. if you want to claim someone to be setting up a strawman, you might want to at least have something to base that accusation on.

  21. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how the UK system compares to Canada, but here our public health care system is a disaster. None of this may apply to the UK so please don't take offence if I'm wrong, but in Canada they should call public health care the public murderers.

    People die in our ERs while waiting for attention. If you do have to go to the ER you can expect a 10-15 hour wait easily. One time my grandmother spend 20 hours in an ambulance in a hospital parking lot because the hospital's ER was full. That also means they were paying ambulance staff to sit around doing nothing for that time. My wife was in the hospital and spent 30 hours in a hallway getting treatment (IV drips connected, etc), because they had no where else to put her.

    A friend's mother was diagnosed with cancer and told there was no treatment and she had less than a year to live. Her kids took her to the states, spent $300,000 on treatment for her. And now 10 years later, she's still going strong.

    I would much rather have a US style system. Why should I have to suffer with crappy medical service when I can afford better. I work hard, I save a lot of my money for the future. Why should the government say I don't deserve to spend that money on better treatment than people who blow their money on crap or don't work at all?

  22. i can't even by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    This is so completely and utterly backwards.

    Aren't we all supposed to have quality insurance now? Why hasn't this problem gone away? Why are patients still being refused treatment because of economic circumstance?

    I can't even.

    Sentence: I officially degrade the USA to the status of 2nd world country.

    1. Re:i can't even by Passman · · Score: 1

      This is so completely and utterly backwards.

      Aren't we all supposed to have quality insurance now? Why hasn't this problem gone away? Why are patients still being refused treatment because of economic circumstance?

      I can't even.

      No, we are all required to have insurance now and it has to include more things. We haven't fixed the ceiling, we've raised the floor.

      Sentence: I officially degrade the USA to the status of 2nd world country.

      Nope. If we were a 2nd world country (i.e. Communist), then we would have decent healthcare.

      --
      Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
    2. Re:i can't even by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      No, we are all required to have insurance now and it has to include more things. We haven't fixed the ceiling, we've raised the floor.

      Maybe this has helped a lot of people, but for me personally it only gave Michigan TERFs and Christians more political ammo against me. I think the line of thought goes something like this: "If we give her meds, next she'll sue us for a free Obamacare sex change, then she'll get it and god/goddess will be pissed at us!"

  23. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But remember, as a UK citizen cared for under the NHS, you just better make sure you don't get cancer. And to anybody who wants to say anything about that, do a bit of research first. The UK is critical about the quality of UKs cancer care.

  24. Something is Wrong Here by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

    Medical care should be a right, not a for profit (or non-profit) business. Perhaps if we stopped interfering in other countries (going to war on false pretenses) we might have money to spend on medical care. How about medical training being paid for so that doctors getting out of medical schools aren't swamped with debt and have to charge higher prices. How about not buying the next greatest non-working weapon system and putting the money into health care. How many people are killed by stress from medical costs compared to the number killed by a terrorist attack in the US? What a fu***d system.

  25. Systemic debt is created by design by Trachman · · Score: 1

    Trying to fix the broken process by setting fundraising site is comparable to the ransom collection by the pirates of the seas, figuratively speaking. Slashdot article mentioned this arrangement because this site collected $2,315 on average per person. Clearly, the concept was executed by the layer of society, who believes in Obamacare, basic income, and free healthcare. Money are collected by the people who have a network anyway. For people without the network this website is not a big help.

    As far as strangers involved: eventually the demand will dwarf all the anonymous donors...

    It is a common knowledge, that pricing of uninsured patient services is outrageous and is inflated, like 10 to 20 times inflated, on what the reasonable or "Medicaid" rates are.

    Writing off those billions is merely an accounting trick, that achieves the following goals:

    1. Allows keeping price lists in obscurity and for different arrangement there is a different price. NB: same person, but with different insurance card or no card at all will be getting different rates. Which tells a lot what exactly is driving the process. Bottom line, every hospital is keeping full price pricelist which is used when people who, ordinarily, can afford the least, get medical services. This price list is public, and, historically, has also been used to confuse the competitors (of course everyone knows multiple pricelists today).

    2. Writing off the debts allows for the hospital to operate in a loss. Reality is that those original billings are not based on a reasonable cost, as such writing off of the losses (for provisions for noncollectable debts) is also not a real economic loss. There are some hospitals in lower socio-economic areas who start believing this accounting and economic model, by admitting a lot of non-paying customers and not having robust finance division. Those hospitals usually go bankrupt or verge on it. Again, incurring accounting losses is an outcome of management decisions on how to price, how to sell and up sell medical services and mix them with private insurance billings. All of this done in order to get coveted financial statements demonstrating poor state of affairs and financial loss, claiming non-profit status (yet paying exorbitant salaries to certain people in healthcare industry) and making money to the pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers.

    The only solution to reducing the prices is complete deregulation and liberalization of the industry. In deregulated market, such fundraisers sites would be valuable if not indispensable tool. ...Will not happen in my lifetime.

  26. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Pretty much. I'm a wage slave^H^H^H^H^Hworking professional. I just paid, what was it, $16 for my meds the other day after traveling 150 miles away, and I still don't know whether my insurance will even cover the office visit or if I'm going to have to pay $100+ out of pocket despite having insurance. Granted, that does turn out to be less expensive than my previous source. But!

    I know somebody with medicaid. She can see a local doctor, and prescriptions are completely covered. She pays no premium and has no income.

    There is something horribly wrong with this picture.

  27. In saner societies by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In saner societies this service called universal healthcare and it is run by the government.

  28. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you're in the UK and have never used the US system. How long does it take to get a appointment at the local surgery. Now add the weeks or months it takes to see the specialist you're referred to. Now add many more months to find a slot to be treated.

    The NHS being great is a myth. It takes forever to get seen, scanned and treated. The singular benefit is you don't have to lose your life's wealth paying for it. You've been massively taxed for it up front.

    Compare to the US. Call, seen within an hour or two. Specialist can be the same day, as they tend to have preferred suppliers/services in town. Need an opt, how's next week.

    I've lived both sides of the Atlantic, and let me tell you, the US medical is superior in every way with the exception of it being all about the money, and private insurance doing all they can to avoid paying.

    And as to your "private" option bullshit. Guess what? When they're over booked for operation type or birth, you get told to fuck off back to the NHS, but you get a small refund on your BUPA premium. Been there, done that, seen it with friends and colleagues.

  29. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    My mother suffers from Chromic Lymphatic Leukaemia, started treatment within two weeks of being diagnosed in 2005, received all the drugs necessary and went into remission. Ten years on, she still has regular checkups, tests and support from the same doctors.

    All for free.

    Don't think that the few cases that come up in the news are indicative of all cases.

  30. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If insurance companies actually would pay for the bills, hospitals would not have to resort to this crap. I agree with the single payer though.

  31. The problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing new - we used to call it charity, and an event centered around raising money and asking for help from strangers was known as a 'benefit', crowdsourcing is just a generational term for something that has long been. We didn't used to have to codify things to understand them or participate. Basically what has happened in the 21st century is that individuals and companies have devised ways to exploit such activities for their own 'benefit' ;), through data collection, skimming off the top, or userous interpretation of law (or outright bribery to create laws that suit them better!). It's everywhere from non-profits to startups.

  32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMnC3Nwif1k by teac2019 · · Score: 0
  33. Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I consider myself very lucky being an European citizen, even with other problems that we may have. I don't know how a country with this problem can consider itself 1st World.

    May the Free Market heal you...

  34. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    In the UK, Accident and Emergency has a 4 hour waiting restriction on patients - if the patient has not been seen and treatment is not underway within 4 hours of them presenting at A&E, it becomes a major incident that needs to be investigated.

    We do have an issue at several hospitals currently where there has been an upsurge in breaches in waiting time where A&E departments have reached capacity, but having private hospitals wouldnt help there as its a max capacity issue brought around by a step change in public behaviour rather than departments being underfunded.

    No, a cold is not a valid reason to come to A&E. No, an ingrowing toe nail is not a valid reason to come to A&E. If you come to A&E drunk and need to sleep it off, you are a fuck tard because you are now blocking an A&E bed because you cannot legally be discharged.

    If you are awaiting an operation, you are low risk and the waiting list is too long, then the NHS will pay for you to have the operation in a private hospital just to cut the waiting list.

  35. You mean help Hospitals Pay UnPaid Medical Bills by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    It's not meant to help the patient. It's meant to help the hospital. When a hospital provides you with a financial aid counselor, you know something is wrong.

  36. Tell me why I should care.. by bfpierce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About an industry that can write off $40 billion and still make massive profits.

    It's not like getting all $6 billion of our 'card and flower' money is going to make them drop prices one dime.

    1. Re:Tell me why I should care.. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It's about hospitals reducing the amount of their write-offs - nothing to do with helping the patient.

    2. Re:Tell me why I should care.. by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Part (nowhere near all) of the problem is that when a hospital writes off millions in uncollectable bills, what they're doing is saying "Well, we can't collect on this. We still have to pay our bills though, so being unable to collect on this means incremental increases in other prices to cover the shortfalls. Or cuts in staff. Or both."

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Tell me why I should care.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bigger part of the problem is that the bills are extremely inflated to begin with. That number of $40 billion in write offs is pretty dubious. Recently had a baby and received a bill prior to the hospital filing with insurance. The original price of the bill was ~$18,000 but since it wasn't filed on insurance they "adjusted" it to only ~$6,000. After giving them my insurance info they filed for $18k, received and accepted as full payment their negotiated rate from insurance of ~$3,500.

      To me, that means the original bill was inflated by about %500. Which would put the $40 billion figure at something more like $8 bil.

  37. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But you're in the UK and have never used the US system. How long does it take to get a appointment at the local surgery.

    If I phone in the morning and it sounds important usually a couple of hours. If I say something like "can I review my hayfever tablets, I hear that there are some newer and better drugs", then its days, sometimes into next week.

    Now add the weeks or months it takes to see the specialist you're referred to. Now add many more months to find a slot to be treated.

    The NHS being great is a myth. It takes forever to get seen, scanned and treated.i

    Again, it depends. My wife had a clicking and achy knee and waited two weeks to be seen and another 10 to be treated. My brother had a small stroke and, wha given an MRI and a treatment within hours.

    And as to your "private" option bullshit. Guess what? When they're over booked for operation type or birth, you get told to fuck off back to the NHS, but you get a small refund on your BUPA premium. Been there, done that, seen it with friends and colleagues.

    That concurs with what my dad says, that the best use of a company healthcare plan is to get a nicer room in an NHS hospital.

  38. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My grandmother had no difficulty getting care for cancer very quickly.

  39. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    Appointment at local surgery? Up to two weeks if its non-urgent, same day if its urgent.

    Consultant appointment? Again, depends on urgency - same week for some things, 18 weeks for non-urgent.

    For example, my wife had a stroke scare the day before Christmas eve, she experienced dysphasia which passed after 10 - 15 minutes. We rang the GP the next morning, within an hour she was in a clinic in the hospital, MRI, CT, blood tests all underway. Follow up MRI this week.

    My mother in law needed a growth removing from her face - 8 weeks from initial GP appointment to post-op follow up.

    I had my ears pinned back when I was about 10 years old - that took 17 weeks from initial GP appointment to op.

    Wife broke her foot stepping off a curb 3 years ago - A&E visit took 4 hours, including x-rays and fitting for a boot.

    As for my private option "bullshit", if the private company isn't delivering then why are you paying them in the first place? You also don't need to pay a BUPA premium in order to go private - book your own appointment at a Spire hospital, pay the fees (£3,500 for a hip replacement, £495 for a growth removal) and do it direct. What makes you think its going to be any different it there wasn't an NHS alternative?

  40. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    *rolls eyes*

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  41. Sometimes flowers are better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A person might just need the comfort and peace of mind while they're sick or injured, thinking of the financial aspect is probably only stressful and counterproductive to their recovery.

  42. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by link-error · · Score: 1

    A 4 hour wait for accident and emergency... and you'll defend that till your death? Seems like that may not be to long anyway.

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  43. the solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know, let's pool everyone's money and have everyone pay for each other's heath care... like having insurance, you pay just incase something goes wrong... or have everyone pay on their taxes and call it a free healthcare system... but that is what communists do!

  44. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    I've supported the idea of something like the UK system for years. But people in the USA will need to get over a few things first. The biggest preconception people have is that under single payer, they will get the same treatment, but for free.

    Unfortunately, we insist on deluxe treatment (under threat of malpractice lawsuit for not providing the best care possible). That's not going to be easy for people to give up. Free, they can get behind. Not getting the nice bed in a private room, not so much.

    I try to explain to people that basic free healthcare is cheap and attainable. But any universal healthcare is not going to be healthcare like they imagine. Go for it, but with open eyes.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  45. Do not want by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    I do not support this project or the idea.

    The figure "the U.S. healthcare industry writes off $40 billion in bad debt from unpaid medical bills" is disingenuous.

    Because healthcare insurance pays all its bills [citation needed], then unpaid bills are only payable by uninsured folk. This represents the retail price, which is orders of magnitude higher than the average selling price (the price health insurance pays).

    I do not recognize the authority of the healthcare industry to charge ruinously higher prices to people not having health insurance [legal rationale pending]. Therefore, I cannot support the repayment of unpaid medical bills. Instead, I support paying reasonable fees for services rendered and then using bankruptcy (and "use the law") to escape ruinous healthcare debts.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    1. Re:Do not want by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      In other words, this sounds like one of those "credit card counselling" scams which are funded by the credit card companies and advise you to pay back your credit card debt. Or the same exact scam for people thinking about not paying their underwater house mortgages.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    2. Re:Do not want by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I do not support this project or the idea.

      The figure "the U.S. healthcare industry writes off $40 billion in bad debt from unpaid medical bills" is disingenuous.

      Because healthcare insurance pays all its bills [citation needed], then unpaid bills are only payable by uninsured folk.

      And Bingo! You pretty much summed up the issue here. The US was caught in a positive feedback loop. As more Americans were falling off the insurance roles, they took to going to emergency rooms for their medical treatments. These people were getting the most expensive healthcare in the world for relatively minor illnesses as well as more major ones. I got to verify this during the last year of my father's life when he went to the ER a few times. There were a lot of people there who looked like they just had a child with the flu or earache or something. I asked the doctor about it, and he noted they were the uninsured, but they still needed treatment, and they were a growing issue.

      As with all things medical, everything is recorded, and billed out, but not paid. So the costs are eventually paid by the insurance company, who then raises rates, and then employers were either dropping health insurance or people were "voluntarily" dropping it, which was making a smaller pool of insured with more and more expenses, and now going to emergency rooms for their primary care.

      A positive feedback loop with an obvious ending, and not a happy one either. For all the bluff and bluster over ObamaCare - or RomneyCare - and make no mistake, it is far from perfect - something had to be done. So it's now tweaking time.

      This crowdfunding thing though is a national embarassment,

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where else can you receive a service, have absolutely no idea of what was provided, how much others are charged, and then get a bill that changes by orders of magnitude based on who is paying?

    4. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "something had to be done"

      And that "something" was forcing people to pay into a broken system by law? Isn't that a little like "fixing" high car prices by outlawing private sales (personal healthcare financing) and forcing people to go to car dealerships (health insurance)? You'll get no argument that our healthcare system needs major work, but limiting peoples options probably isn't the solution. Providing more options (non profit healthcare groups, health savings accounts, etc) and removing artificial restraints (extreme cost of validating medical device/treatments, limiting healthcare worker class sizes, etc.) is much more likely to solve the problem.

    5. Re:Do not want by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "something had to be done"

      And that "something" was forcing people to pay into a broken system by law? Isn't that a little like "fixing" high car prices by outlawing private sales (personal healthcare financing) and forcing people to go to car dealerships (health insurance)?

      Hey - your group is trying to outlaw Tesla dealerships, so bad analogy.

      Is perfect the enemy of good? Sorry, but the system which does have problems did not have tose problems because of th proponents, The problems are dirctly because of th opponents. You cant have it both ways, by declaring tires unsafe because you purposely let the ait out of therm. Or that no one should ever have tires on their car because they go flat occasionally. Or in this case purposely screwing up something the rest of the civilized world can do.

      NO health care system will ever be perfect. And one thing is for certain. The insurance sysrtem that was in place was so monumentally fucked up that no replacement system coiuld ever be as bad. Have a pre-existing condition? Tough You are stuck in your job forever, or go without any insurance at all. The nastiest most anti-American provision of the Old system you seem to like. My wife's boss and his wife were both walled in, she had breast cancer, he had a blood clotting issue. And neither could get any new insurance, so they were stuck. No upward mobility, or just no health insurance at all, havint to go to the emergency room and participate in the positive feedback loop that teh American healthcare system had become.

      Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at our incompetence.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  46. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the UK, Accident and Emergency has a 4 hour waiting restriction on patients - if the patient has not been seen and treatment is not underway within 4 hours of them presenting at A&E, it becomes a major incident that needs to be investigated.

    I think the NHS is far better than the US system for most people, *however* the above doesn't mention one unfortunate reality of that 4-hour limit (at least in my experience):

    You will be evaluated and treatment will begin within 4 hours... but the "evaluation" may be literally just an on-call doc evaluating you to make sure it'd be safe for you to wait longer. And treatment beginning? Well... treatment begins with an evaluation...

    In other words, they can and do game the stats when necessary.

  47. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regional differences. Yes, there are differences between populated versus not. Your generalization doesn't really apply to the major centres and their catchman (sp?) areas.

  48. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, I would. If you can wait 4 hours to be seen, is it really an emergency?

    Go in with a cardiac arrest and you will be seen straight away.

    Go in with a broken nose, you wait your turn.

  49. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    A&E departments are staffed independently of the rest of the hospital, so there is no such thing as an "on call doc" in A&E - when your turn to be seen by a doctor comes up, you are assigned to a bay in the A&E department and you sit in that bay until you either move on to another department (AMU for admissions, X-ray for x-rays etc etc) or receive your treatment and are discharged. You are not sent back to the waiting room to be called back through.

    If hospitals gamed the system as you describe, no hospital would breach the 4 hour limit, and yet we hear about breaches regularly. So the evidence is that hospitals are not gaming the system.

  50. Re:You mean help Hospitals Pay UnPaid Medical Bill by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Yes, and this helps lower medical costs for people who DO pay for their medical care. This is just shifting the burden to people who involuntarily pay the costs to people who do. I don't have a problem with that.

  51. So basically, it's like universal health insurance by naasking · · Score: 1

    Collectively empathizing with people who have fallen on hard times due to sickness, and helping each other out by small donations to help pay those bills? So basically it's health insurance, except it's one that the poor can actually afford. Won't be nearly as effective because it isn't mandatory though.

  52. The begging economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this really work?

  53. In the dark of the night... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obamacare was forced through on a perfectly partisan aligned vote, against the will of the majority of Americans... But they rammed it through. It cost them the House, the Senate, enormous number of seats in the State and local governments. It left us with a disposed and imputent President... But they did it.
    And still we have this? Odd... We were promised you would be able to keep your Doctor and that the uninsured would become insured.
    Suckers.

  54. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like the next time you have a broken bone your bankrupt!!!

    bankrupt or 4hour wait, i'll take the wait!!

  55. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by Altus · · Score: 1

    Insurance companies don't get rich writing checks.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  56. Insurance is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The odds of any one person ever having an expensive medical emergency are very low. It is like winning the lottery in reverse. We're going to charge you taxes on your ficticious lottery winnings just in case you do win someday, but obviously most people never "win."

  57. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, sometimes errors are made, same as in private hospitals.

    Problem is at the moment the Tory government is deliberately using it's close contacts with Murdock controlled media to make the UK NHS to be useless for "political ideology", as in if we can get people to believe that the NHS is bad, then we can convince them to let us sell it off to private companies. Jeremy Hunt (sorry for the spelling error I know his surname starts with a "C") does not hide the fact he want this to occur.

  58. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    This is why I love living in the UK and will defend the NHS until my death.

    Here in the UK I don't have to worry about the cost of my healthcare, and if I want it quicker or I want a nicer bed then I always have the option of paying privately anyway.

    I'm a fan of the two tier system as well. Assured basic coverage from a national system and the option to pay extra if you want a different service level. The big thing would be to get all the non-emergency patients out of the emergency room and into the system where they belong; since ER care is probably the most expensive in the hospital. Of course, it's not just a simple as offering free care elsewhere but ensuring they can navigate the system and have a way to get to the appointment; otherwise they'll still go to the ER because it's convenient, free to them, and they know they'll eventually be seen.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  59. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    I know somebody with medicaid. She can see a local doctor, and prescriptions are completely covered. She pays no premium and has no income.

    There is something horribly wrong with this picture.

    People will debate "wrongness," but in that situation, you are buying her medicaid for her. And depending on where she lives, she may have a real problem finding a doctor willing to take her on as a patient, because he loses money (not just less income, but actual negative cash flow) with every hour spent with each such patient.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  60. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Just have medicare for all and get rid of the overpriced priced bills that have A single aspirin for $25

    You hit on one of the numbers behind the $40 billion in unpaid bills. Hospitals jack up bills because they have to cover the costs on un or under insured patients; so you see $25 aspirins. Insurance companies pay no where near those prices; for example when I look at a bill a $500.00 bill becomes about $125 once all the negotiated prices are reflected in the bill. Hospitals have the high rack rates to try cover costs from those who can pay and don't have insurance. Even someone who doesn't have insurance wouldn't necessarily pay those rates either; an MD I knew, pre ACA, would negotiate medical bills prior to entering the hospital and pay up front in cash, resulting in a significant discount, for pre-planned care. The MD carried a high deductible insurance plan for an unplanned catastrophic event, just in case. Of course, it helped to know what insurance companies paid so you could negotiate around that price while offering a no hassle payment up front to avoid all the paperwork that goes into a claim.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  61. Pathetic by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Simply pathetic.

    The rest of the big boy and girl countries have figured this stuff out, and the US is reduced to begging.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  62. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what you are saying is the USA has lots of doctors sat doing fuck all, waiting for some one rich enough for an appointment!!

  63. Remove all the constrains and regulations by Trachman · · Score: 1

    And the aspirin (or equivalent) will cost you $0.25.

  64. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20 hours wait in ER? People like you abuse system, but thanks god people in hospitals are aware of that, and let you wait for 20 hours, they should let you wait 60 hours so you don't pull this shit next time when you have a light headache.
    Go to US if you do not like Canadian system.

    I was in hospital 3 times each time ER, once car accident, got my MRI done in 30 min, stitches etc all done on the spot, then spend few days in hospital. second time bike accident, open broken hand and, surgery in 3 hours on the weekend. Third time heart issue: got instantaneous help saving my life. Friend of my with Aneurysm open heart surgery 15 min after transported to hospital, saved his life.
    Canadian healthcare system is one of the best in the world for those that relay need it.

  65. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not move to the great Europe than? Why force your ideas on people who don't want them and won't vote for them when you can have what you want today with a simple airplane trip? Are you that much of an egomaniac that you think you know best for everyone else and they are too stupid to know what is best for them?

    Also, stop illegal immigration first. Why should we pay for medical care for all of Mexico? Healthcare is far more difficult than securing a border and the government is unable to do that.

  66. Why can't we take that $? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may be because the quoted 40billion dollars quoted are based on price sheets for hostipals and doctors of which insurance companies/medicare actually only pays a very very small percentage -- the only time those numbers are actually used to close accounts is if they land on people to pay. In fact most times a 40,000.00 bill on rate sheet billing would be discounted down to 4,000.00 if the person just called and worked with the hospital.

    The issue here is that the system is broken with this huge rates because hospitals have to max out their rate sheet costs across the board because they need to negotiate a huge discount with each insurance company for services and it gives them a larger pool to pull back from.

    It is disingenuous to drop those costs as deficits -- they were never meant to be charged/received; but only to negotiate the broken system.

    A one payer system would kill off this billing game.

  67. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    A big issue being seen by GP's today is that there has been a loss of home-knowledge about illnesses in newer generations - an illness which would have put you in bed with chicken soup, a hot water bottle and a good book 30 years ago now necessitates a visit to the GP for antibiotics (even though they don't work against viral illnesses, as any doctor will tell you) or A&E if the GP surgery is closed.

    One of the quickest growing group of users of the NHS is in those under 30 - despite the UK population gradually moving to an older average age.

    Why? Because newer generations have abdicated responsibility for their health and well being to the healthcare system - just as practically no one under 40 changes their cars oil or lightbulbs these days, instead abdicating their cars care to a garage once or twice a year, or Halfords when a bulb blows.

    Younger generations are more focused on life itself rather than maintenance issues, and thats seen a huge increase in the use of the NHS along the way.

  68. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you completely misread GP intentionally or are you just uneducated and illiterate?

  69. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Why not move to the great Europe than?

    Please, may I?! Are you willing to pay for me to move over to say Germany or the Netherlands where my ancestors most likely came from and get established?

    I would hop on the plane today, but being a wage slave, I simply don't have the resources to escape. I could vacation over there, sure, but how long will it take me to become fluent again and start having an income on my own? I will admit, it's my fault as well. I stupidly dug roots in a backwater state in a crumbling empire without understanding that what I've been facing is not the norm for the rest of the developed world or even in a general sense the rest of the USA.

    I am curious if my recent difficulties obtaining health care would be enough to qualify me as a refugee instead of an economic migrant. Since I'm mostly German, would there be a problem with me saying, "My ancestors fucked up. Please accept my apologies and take me back in."

  70. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  71. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    And you only hear of the few extreme cases. The wait times for the ER are long in Canada because too many people go there for things that they should be going to a clinic for and so they wait. And the Ontario government isn't helping things with this. My family doctor is part of a clinic and if I don't go to that clinic or the ER then my doctor gets a penalty. So if I have a bad cold that I'm worried that may be turning into bronchitis and the clinic doesn't have any openings today or isn't running their walk-in that day I'm supposed to go to the ER. It's not an emergency. It's something that I want to prevent from becoming one and the proper place for me to go is a clinic. The few times that I've had to go to the ER I've been seen within a short period of time.

    I have heard about people that have had to wait in corridors and it's terrible. But it's caused due to a lack of beds in other wards in the hospital. Part of that problem is that there are too many patients in there that should be in long term care facilities.

  72. Would we be paying medical bills or medical costs? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The doctor bills an uninsured patient gets have no relationship to the contracted amounts that would actually be paid for the same procedure (company plus patient copay) by an insurance company or government assistance. Indeed, the payment for a given procedure can be wildly different among insurance plans, even from one company.

    Hospital bills are even less related to the actual amounts paid for procedures. No, your insurance company is not really paying $25 for each aspirin you got during your stay. That line is in the "chargemaster" bill in hopes of trapping the occasional hapless foreign tourist - who will hate America for the rest of his life, but that's not your problem as a hospital accountant. Here's the story of a visiting Norwegian whose country was billed $143,000 for treating a rattlesnake bite:

    http://www.10news.com/news/-14...

  73. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by guruevi · · Score: 1

    The biggest thing in US vs Europe is tax rate. The effective federal tax rate in the US is 25% for those that can't (really) afford either ObamaCare or private insurance. In the UK it's 45%. If you sink 20% of your income into private insurance, you can pay for very good private insurance in the US.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  74. More proof by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    That America is fundamentally broken...

    1. Re:More proof by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      The fact that we are trying to figure out the best solutions means we are fundamentally broken? That comment is insane.

    2. Re:More proof by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      No dum-dum, the fact that a Crowdfunding site to pay for patients medical bills is even needed.

      Nice try though troll

    3. Re:More proof by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Not in the slightest. I didn't troll by saying (essentially) "spare me." But the fact that we're working on finding out solutions and figuring out what will work shows our strength, not our weakness.

  75. It's easy to write off $billions in debt when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... hospitals just *COMPLETELY MAKE UP* any charges they like for the un-insured.

    1-out-of-10 un-insured patients will pay off their entire debt.

    2-out-of-10 un-insured patients will almost bankrupt themselves trying to pay off their debt.

    And what about the other 7 out of 10 un-insured patients with huge debts to pay?
    Well, the hospital made enough money from the other 3 patients to cover their costs for all 10 patients and make a big fat profit.

    It's just disgusting.

  76. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    This is SO full of sh*t. Yes, during an outbreak of c. difficile or flu, the hospital is running over capacity. So you end up on a gurney in the hallway in ER. But you still get the treatment you need, and when a room opens up, it's not left empty.

    Your grandmother could have asked to be transferred to another hospital. Problem solved.

    If more people didn't go directly to an ER for minor things, but went to one of the clinics, that would go a long way to solving the problem of waiting times.

    Oh, btw, if you don't have either $300,000 or some form of insurance to cover your cost in the US, you will not get the equivalent treatment that you would havel with the money or coverage available. Minimal treatment, and out you go.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  77. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    We just opened up a new hospital with 500 beds - all single room, with larger rooms and picture windows in each room, soundproofed, state of the art equipment, The idea is that by treating people more effectively in comfortable rooms that are large enough to accommodate family and friends, patient treatment will be more effective. And yes, we have single-payer universal healthcare.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  78. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 1

    Lookit that: an anonymous commenter dissing Canadian public health care!! Sigh...

    I'm Canadian, I occasionally use Medicare and I'm satisfied with it. Yes, outpatient service in hospitals is nearly always slow. But based on personal and other people's experience, real emergencies are generally taken care of quickly.
    When/where it's available, avoid outpatient service by using local, smaller health clinics. They're generally fast, and often take appointments so you don't have to wait 4-5 hours at the hospital. When they needed medical care, friends and parents were generally well taken care of and in a timely manner, at no cost to themselves, even when the medical procedure was very expensive.

    Yes, people have died in Canadian ER and outpatient waiting areas. A lot more people have died, in the American system, because they couldn't afford medical care at all, and because of its profit-driven exigencies. See here "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?", Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, from the JAMA: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/... Link goes to a downloadable PDF.

    If you wanted to see how most/nearly-all Canadians feel about Medicare, just run stand for office and have a plank in your platform stating that you want to dismantle Medicare and switch to an American-style system.

    Even Harper wouldn't have dared to that.

  79. Re:DNR ignored. $300,000 win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the DNR was legally executed, then this is Medicare fraud. Did your family report this to the government or even to the local media?

  80. Triple insurance bypass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've often wondered if some kind of personal bank account/crowdfunding system for healthcare would be more appropriate than the nightmare of a system we're currently being saddled with. Your average person has around $10k or more of their money go towards the healthcare/insurance industry per year whether they use any medical care or not. Accumulated over a lifetime that is a third to half a million dollars. Your average person isn't going to use that much over their lifetime. They could donate some of it towards people with major conditions and bypass the insurance industry. Not sure I'd want a hospital running the crowdfunding system though as most have a well defined history of inflating bills to pad their bottom line.

  81. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    Where do you think the $25 aspirin came from? Medicare publishes how much they are willing to pay for a service code. The clinic then establishes a "cost" of double what Medicare will pay. Then your insurance company steps in and says "$50 for aspirin is insane, we'll only pay $35."

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  82. Re:what a third-world shithole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because of Republicans.

    We can't even maintain our water infrastructure because it's more morally desirable to give 1%s a pass on taxes.
    Poisoning the poor with lead is just a happy side-effect.

    You are talking about Flint, MI. Local politicians made the decisions that lead to the poisoning. All Democrats.

  83. America - Worst healthcare on the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America has the worst health care on the planet. One bit of bad luck and you lose everything you ever owned.

    You really should look at how civilised Euorpean countries do health care.

  84. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    Yes, and that clock starts ticking when the patient gets out of the ambulance (or otherwise enters the Emergency Room). As a result, there are stories about hospitals in the UK where the ambulances are backed up waiting for hours for the hospital to allow them to unload the patient into the Emergency Room.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  85. Re:You mean help Hospitals Pay UnPaid Medical Bill by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Why is something wrong? When someone wants to make use of a large staff of highly trained professionals and millions of dollars worth of labs and equipment, but hasn't made any arrangements to actually afford all of that, it's not going to be a financially rosy scenario. Just like if that person accidentally burns down half of their house and then arranges for the services of an architect, demolition crew, and a homebuilder's crew, equipment, and materials to fix it back up ... but hasn't made any arrangements to be able to actually pay for that.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  86. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I would. If you can wait 4 hours to be seen, is it really an emergency?

    Go in with a cardiac arrest and you will be seen straight away.

    Go in with a broken nose, you wait your turn.

    So then the rule isn't 4 hours? Why does the person with the heart-attack get preferential treatment? It's either 4 hours or it isn't. Which is it?

  87. Blatant ripoffs by Erbo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So, the health care industry, not content with sucking down one dollar in every five in the U.S. economy, wants to grab a few extra billion?

    When you take your car in to be serviced, the law requires that you be given a binding estimate of the costs involved before any work is done, and the mechanic is forbidden to exceed that estimate (within a small margin, like 10%) without getting your permission first. Mechanics who violate that law go to jail. Why do we not have those same kinds of consumer protections in the health care industry?

    Pharmaceutical companies routinely charge people in the U.S. more for their products than in other countries, such that a drug which costs $100,000 for a full course of treatment in the U.S. costs only $5,000 in India, or scorpion antivenom that is billed at $40,000 a vial in the U.S. is available for $100 a vial in Mexico. Yet, if you were to go outside the country, buy those drugs, and bring them back to the U.S., you would go to prison, thanks to a law bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, a blatant infringement on the Doctrine of First Sale (which is that, once you buy something, it is yours to do with as you wish). The Supreme Court recently ruled (Kirtsaeng vs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. ___ (2013), Docket No. 11-697) that this practice was impermissible in the textbook industry. Why, then, should it be permissible in the pharmaceutical industry?

    If we were to get rid of all the special exemptions that the health care industry has under law, and force it to abide by the existing law of the land (such as the Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman Acts), including prison time for health care and insurance executives where applicable, the cost of health care would drop by 80% or more. Most people could then pay cash for their health care needs for about the same as they pay in a deductible today...meaning "health insurance" would no longer be necessary (except for "catastropic care" policies for unforeseen circumstances, which would cost about the same as your car insurance). Some form of Medicare and Medicaid would still be required for the truly less fortunate, but would cost a lot less. Obamacare would no longer be needed and could be trivially repealed. The economy would experience a massive boost because health care would no longer be draining it, and every government budget deficit problem, Federal, state, and local, would be instantly solved. (Leading to secondary effects such as stopping the erosion of your purchasing power because the government keeps "printing money" to fund its deficit spending.)

    --
    Be who you are...and be it in style!
  88. 1.3% bad debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in the US, healthcare costs about $3T per year. The article says they have to write off about $40B in bad debt each year. That's 1.3% in bad debt. Boo hoo. I think they'll just have to learn to live without that $40B.

  89. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    ...then you must not keep up with the news then.

    There's restrictions on cancer drugs due to budget restrictions.
    Doctors threatening to go on strike over pay cuts and work hours.
    Discussions about rationing of simple orthopedic surgeries or limiting them based on some yet to be defined "merit" criteria.

    In general, the order of the day seems to be budget cuts and rationing.

    Right now, the NHS is actually more of a cautionary tale.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  90. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    You must look at total tax rates in the US and Europe NOT JUST FEDERAL tax rates.

  91. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    It's not even Medicaid. Medicare also has this problem.

    I'm really amused by any American that wants to embrace socialized medicine. Sure, the Germans might be able to pull it off but when has the US ever done well implementing welfare?

    Do they not know any poor people or old people or veterans? Clearly not.

    Just about any welfare program that existed in the US ever has had to deal with claw backs from the GOP. Even if it started out well it eventually devolved into something awful as soon as something like 20/20 started running articles about fraud and abuse. All of the state workers comp systems were gutted after that.

    You do NOT want to admit to a workplace injury. If one happens, say you were engaging in some hobby at home. You are MUCH better off with evil private insurance based healthcare.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  92. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    And if you self pay because you don't have coverage - because you can't afford (say) 1200 per month for premiums despite the so-called Affordable Care Act and pay the tax penalty - you pay $50 per aspirin. I'm not arguing the ACA versus not but just that folks who dont' have coverage pay "list prices" and folks with coverage pay "discount prices."

  93. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Insurance companies write plenty of checks.

    They are generally evil but they are more than willing to pay claims. Medical providers engage in abusive billing practices that are just bad enough not to be blatantly illegal. There's also a fair amount of genuine fraud as well.

    There are a number of things that could stand reform here and Obamacare completely ignored them.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  94. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    If you self pay in my state the hospital can only collect as much as it would have collected from insurance.

    I can also neither confirm nor deny the urban legend about this $50 aspirin as medical bills are not sufficiently detailed to validate this. This may or may not be true but anyone that's repeating it is really just pulling it out their ass.

    Consider both of these issues that should have been addressed by the ACA but weren't.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  95. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest obstacle is the insurance companies, their lobbyists are far too influential to let this happen.

  96. But think of the greeting card industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And paper processing plant employees and lumberjacks and the people planting and caring for the trees that will one day be turned in to a greeting card that reads "I heard you were sick. Get well and I hope you have insurance." with a picture of a sad puppy with a hot water bottle on his head and a thermometer sticking out of his mouth. Wow! These things just write themselves.

  97. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

    Great.....anecdotes....no one cares. Go away, republican AC.

  98. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

    with a simple airplane trip?

    I would love to move there and I'm trying to but it really isn't as easy as an airplane trip, fool. Getting a job in a country where you are not a native speaker, getting a work visa and all the other friction of moving across an imaginary border are ridiculous.

    Why should we pay for medical care for all of Mexico?

    Because Reagan and the conservatives voted this into law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  99. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NZ is the same.

    The TPPA better not screw with it.

  100. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    To be blunt, if you aren't having a genuine emergency then you are a MORON for going to the ER. It's common knowledge that any ER runs on a priority queue. It's NOT "first come first served". The people that ARE actually dying have a very justifiable medical priority. So the fools and hypocondriacs just have to wait.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  101. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Unless you've got real numbers about people dying for lack of money in America, it's just mindless political propaganda.

    On the other hand, I personally know someone that was killed by the Canadian medical system. He didn't receive what would have been considered the standard of care in America. His condition was not properly diagnosed and what they missed initially ended up killing him.

    He was a victim of miserly lab work, the flip side of the "over diagnosis" bogeyman.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  102. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by will_die · · Score: 1

    I use to live in Germany and loved the single payer system there.
    I would call up for an appointment and would have it that week. Doctors would take me in at lunch, or whatever time I wanted.

    I do need to explain I was not on the German single payer system. When I would first called up and told them I had an issue,non life threatening it would be a few weeks, however after they would check my record and see I was not using the single payer system I would be accommodated in the next day or so. I would go in by pass all the people who had been there for a while, get the work done an be out why they were still sitting there. The system payer system is great, as long as I am not on it.

  103. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by rkww · · Score: 1

    It all depends on how ill you are (or think you are...)

    Here are the options.

    In short, if it's urgent, go to a walk in centre or A&E who will see you pretty-much immediately (as a triage), do whatever scans and tests are required, and if necessary admit you to hospital.

    Otherwise for seemingly less urgent stuff, you can go and see your GP (you might need to make an appointment),

    The GP may deal with the issue directly, or they might refer you to a consultant (in which case there may be a delay as you move up their list.) Or they might tell you to go straight to A&E.

    But here's the thing - it'll be exactly the same consultant, and quite probably in the same hospital, as you would have seen if you had gone to A&E in the first place (if you were ill enough.)

    In short, delays, when they occur, are mainly due to the triage process.

    And there's always the option of going private (either paying directly or through insurance); you still have to go via your GP (for non-A&E issues) but you can jump the consultant's list. (Yes, the same consultant, but this time in a private hospital for a day or two a week.)

    There's no benefit to be gained from private health insurance for genuine emergencies; if you had a heart attack in a private hospital they would take you to the NHS A&E. But you might have a nicer room, and better food.

  104. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Forget about Fox News. The "inconvenient facts" that I bring up are reported by the BBC. Not exactly a Tory stronghold.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  105. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10-15 hours? Then it must have been non-life threatening. Many people use the ER as their doctor.
    Our daughter had a UTI a few weeks back. We went in as she was in great pain and we were back in the car not an hour later after tests, diagnosis, and prescription.

  106. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > I really don't think you do, but hey, it's your dollar. Do what you want with it.

    Consider it a basic IT capacity planning exercise.

    Do you want your servers to always being run balls to the walls at 100% capacity or do you want some left over so that your systems run better, you can handle a sudden spike, or even some limited future growth.

    Now consider that this exercise is not just about some consume product or other thing that really has no significance in the grand scheme of things. Consider that this is your life. This is your worthless ass that's on the line. It's not just some Koreans in some internet cafe that can't get their gaming fix. It's your life.

    I would rather not have my life hang in the balance because some bean counter thinks that a little excess capacity is unacceptable.

    Been there, done that. Love not having to worry about that sort of thing. Much less distressing than the whole "can I pay" thing.

    That's the problem with socialism. It doesn't matter if you are a "rich man" or not. Sh*t's just not there to be bought.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  107. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Right now, the NHS is actually more of a cautionary tale.

    Indeed, about the consequences of electing Tories.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  108. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > Please, may I?! Are you willing to pay for me to move over to say Germany

    Why should we pay? You're the one that wants a socialist utopia. You don't have to destroy this country. You can just go back to the one that your ancestors escaped from.

    Your attitude is the basic disconnect here. Many of us expect to be responsible for ourselves. You want the rest of us to pick up the slack for you. That's not the way it works over here. If you want something done for you, you have to sort it out for yourself.

    You can have your socialist utopia. You will just have to stop being a Mooch for one minute in order to achieve it.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  109. Wonder why hospitals are not in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Card business.

  110. profit thru fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    step 1) find something that scares people. medical bills or whatever

    step 2) get others to put up the money

    step 3) take a percentage off the top as profit.

    wait, that's the entire insurance industry already!

    but now with even less oversight.

  111. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 1

    One anecdote doesn't override stats, jedidiah. I could give pointless, inapplicable anecdotes if that is the only thing you'll believe, but I won't bother. Numbers, however...

    "New study finds 45,000 deaths [in the US] annually linked to lack of health coverage" - Harvard Gazette
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazett...

    In 1978, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported that, "Only 10%-20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial. In 1995, the OTA compared medical technology in eight countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States) and again noted that few medical procedures in the U.S. had been subjected to clinical trial. It also reported that infant mortality was high and life expectancy was low compared to other developed countries. Although almost ten years old, much of what was said in this report holds true today. The report lays the blame for the high cost of medicine squarely at the feet of the medical free-enterprise system and the fact that there is no national health care policy. It describes the failure of government attempts to control health care costs due to market incentive and profit motive in the financing and organization of health care including private insurance, hospital system, physician services, and drug and medical device industries. Whereas we may want to expand health-care, expansion of disease-care is the goal of free enterprise. "Health Care Technology and Its Assessment in Eight Countries" is also the last report prepared by the OTA, which was shut down in 1995. It's also, perhaps, the last honest, in-depth look at modern medicine. Because of the importance of this 60-page report, we enclose a summary in the Appendix.
    http://www.wnho.net/deathbymed...

    There is none so blind, as those that will not see. - Matthew Henry.

  112. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not once you get ove a certain age you can't

  113. FFS, really. by ledow · · Score: 1

    FUND YOUR FUCKING HEALTHCARE, like a civilised country.

    The hospitals are only doing this so that THEY get paid.

    When the guy with your life in his hands is only going to touch you if he thinks you're going to pay, he's breaching everything from basic morals to the Hippocratic Oath.

    Pay people who care to be able help everyone, instead.

  114. " bad debt " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like the shit I've been chased with illegally by various debt collectors? The injury that occurred while on duty in the reserves, that the hospital illegally sent to debt collections? That the debt collector then illegally sold to another debt collector? 7 times? I don't give a rat's ass if they are "writing off bad debt" unless the homework is done to prove it's a legitimately owed amount.

  115. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    I thought the US finally had some ethical medical care.
    Apparently they're still lagging behind the rest of the world.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  116. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen, first hand, the care a privately insured American gets compared to a publicly funded patent? I have and I would still take the NHS over the highest tier private coverage in America. The idea that we have "the best" care is entirely false. If it weren't would the people that can afford it be going overseas anyway?

    Cue all the false comparisons of the British ghetto to McMansion-Ville USA et al.

  117. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just the federal tax rate. State is another 7% or so + all other minor taxes.

  118. Hey look, a simplistic solution! by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    Each year, the U.S. healthcare industry writes off $40 billion in bad debt from unpaid medical bills. "Then you consider that $6 billion is spent on cards and flowers for patients every year. Why can't we redirect that money and put it into a debit instrument restricted to medical spending only?" said Jagemann-Bane, CEO of Someone With Group.

    Sure, sounds great, unless your family's income relies on selling flowers /cards or you happen to work in the flower or greeting card business... $40 billion in medical debts reduced by (at best) $6 billion is flowers/greeting cards sales leaves $34 billion in unpaid medical debts (a 15% reduction) at the cost of shuttering two industries putting a few hundred thousand Americans on the unemployment line in the process...

  119. It's called Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You already have it. It's called Canada. :) Well, health care is controlled provincially. In Ontario health care expenses are 40% of tax revenue and 8.5% of the GDP. Though I wouldn't mind paying extra for faster service.

  120. Re:DNR ignored. $300,000 win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having worked in a hospital, I can tell you that there are many cases where a DNR is ignored, usually when a weeping daughter (who may not always have power of attorney) starts shouting, "that's my mother", "bring her back!" I have seen the look on doctors faces making that call. Right or wrong, I am glad that I am not in their position.

  121. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by Altus · · Score: 1

    Yes, but its not how the make money. Its a cost center, and like any other company you have to minimize the costs going out. That might mean deductibles, it might mean limited networks with really good deals and it also might mean fighting with doctors over whether they are going to pay for a service that was rendered or not.

    All of these are things that insurance companies do and its not about being evil or not, its their job as a capitalist enterprise, it is their job to make money for the shareholders. This is why it is generally considered to be a bad thing to have such entities involved in health coverage because the demand for healthcare is inelastic. People get sick and they need to be treated and when companies can charge increasingly high premiums while trying their best to minimize expenditures it is a bad situation for the people who had the misfortune to get sick.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  122. Re: Just have medicare for all and get rid of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    45% uk nope, wrong.

    poorest pay closer to 25%
    middle about 33%
    rich %40 to %45 (but generally much lower as they can avoid lots by doing sneaky stuff that their accountant advises.

    (And yes, I have been in all 3 situations!! so I really do know!!)

  123. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BBC is impartial, and at the moment slightly to the right, as they are threatened with being dissolved due to Murdock influence on government!!, so are sucking up to ca"moron"

  124. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like your thinking

    Fuck everybody but me!!!

    if everyone though like that I'm not sure I'd want to be alive!!!.

    Selfish prick!!

  125. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    I can confirm the $50 aspirin - not because I've been in hospital but because I worked for a company that did healthcare IT. The cost accounting is done by taking (essentially) all of the costs of a hospital and allocating them to various "Service Items" by a weighted algorithm. Of course, I've never seen such a bill however I do know in the early 1990s my wife was hospitalized and we had a 'surcharge' on the bill that was ~150% of the bill - it was the 'uninsured patients surcharge.' But that was a long time ago. I like your state's self pay regs.

  126. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Ok then, don't worry. You're just going to have to wait a few years for me to get the resources together.

    However, I'm also eyeballing the ravaged land of the druggies and laws that protect trans people: Colorado.

  127. Re:Just have medicare for all and get rid of the o by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    She's living in the same town as me, which is why earlier this month I was getting so pissed off at Michigan Feminism. One of the local hospitals provides trans care, just not to me for unknown political reasons, most likely related to my role when Obamacare shut down a women's health organization I was "volunteered" to be a liaison with by my employer, they won't negotiate or even openly state.

  128. Here's how this will work, should it be successful by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    1) patient crowdfunds for surgery costing 20K US$
    2) Patient successfully raises 20K US$ and pays for surgery.
    3) Hospital raises price of future surgeries to 40K US$

    It's like College costs, the more money that flows in, the more is absorbed.

  129. Testimony how i got a loan from { calviinloancompa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testimony how i got a loan from { calviinloancompany@gmail.com }

    Am so happy and thankful to God for what he has done in my life,i am Jenifer Vasquez from California USA after four years of seeking for online loan, the internet Scammers has succeeded in taking from me the sum of $21,000.00 without given me my loan, I lost every thing i have because of scam and ever since i was scared to make contact online concerning loan. One day, as i was browsing, i saw a comment by a woman name Talesha Lance from California USA thanking Calvin Scott Loan Company for giving her a loan and also saying that if there is any one who also need loan are to contact the company and they will surly lend anybody any amount of Loan. So i took there email from the net and contacted them we had every agreement to pay back the loan and i submitted my bank account to them and they told me i will have to pay for registration and at first i was afraid and later on i gave them a try after they assured me that i will receive my loan in 24hours and to my greatest shock, exactly 24hours after making the loan registration payment, i received an alert from my bank confirmation that Calvin Scott Loan Company has transfer money worth amount of $71,000.00 dollars to my account am so happy and i want to use this medium to advice every one who is in need of loan out there to contact Calvin Scott Loan via email: calviinloancompany@gmail.com or view their webpage: http://calvinfinancialloanhome.bravesites.com/ or Tel: (+1)501-429-4519 and please beware of internet scams most of this Email of lenders you see online are all scams so contact the Calvin Scott Loan Company because they are capable of given you your loan thanks.

  130. Wells Fargo Loan Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Mr. Alex Gordon , a private money lender. I give out loans with an interest rate of 3% per annual and within the amount of $1000.00 to $500,000,000.00 as the loan offer. 100% Project Funding with secured and unsecured loans are available. We are guaranteed in giving out financial services to our numerous clients all over the world. With our flexible lending packages, loans can be processed and funds transferred to the borrower within the shortest time possible. We operate under clear and understandable terms and we offer loans of all kinds to interested clients, firms, companies, and all kinds of business organizations, private individuals and real estate investors. Just complete the form below and get back to us as we expect your swift and immediate response. EMAIL : wellsfargoloan0@gmail.com

    Attention!!!

    Do you have a bad credit?
    Do you need money to pay bills?
    Do you need to start up a new business?
    Do you have unfinished project at hand due to bad financing?
    Do you need money to invest in some area of specialization which will profit you? and you don’t know what to do.

    We offer the following loans below,
    personal loans[secure and unsecured]
    business loans[secure and unsecured]
    combination loans
    students loans
    consolidation loans and so many others.

    1. Full Names:.
    2. Contact Address:..
    3. Loan Amount Needed:..
    4. Duration of the Loan.
    5. Direct Telephone Number:..

    Email wellsfargoloan0@gmail.com

    Best Regards,

    Mr Alex Gordon ,