341–350 of 440 posts
> Some private-equity firms have turned this kind of billing into a robust business model, buying emergency room doctor groups and moving the providers out of network so they could bill larger fees. If this doesn’t describe evil, I don’t know what else would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course you have. The first thing you did when you walked in was hand them your ID and coverage info. You think hospitals operate on the honor system? They mail you these paper forms known as "bills". I have examples I can show you. Insurance only pays a portion. I suppose you can call it a kind of honor system. And given your examples, you apparently aren't aware that when it comes to emergence care in the US, h…
I've lived in the US for more than 10 years. What you're saying there is a mix of half-truths. One is of course that "I suppose you can call it a kind of honor system," no, you can't, it's enforceable by law and actively collected upon. That's not an honor system. > And given your examples, you apparently aren't aware that when it comes to emergence care in the US, hospitals which have an emergency department are req…
New goalpost eh? No they generally just treat everyone fully and pass the cost on to people with insurance. Trying to transfer uninsured people out leads to lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I provided two examples of a coercive economic system. Just because it's an economic system doesn't make it any less coercive. The dictate is clear. A free market requires a voluntary participation of both the buyer and the seller . Threat of death is not voluntary participation, so it is not a free market. In a car crash you are not in a position to negotiate or make providers compete for your business. In functioni…
> - Healthcare for 40% of Americans? Socialized. (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). Medicare is socialized medicine. > Americans pay less for food than anyone else and more for medicine than anyone else. Is your point then that food is cheap because it is socialized at a 100% rate as you want healthcare to be? Or that your references to socialism are all red herrings? Poor people can get free healthcare the same ways they get…
My point is food is cheap because the government intervenes, it's not a free market as you make it out to be, and yes food is provided to those in need. However, there aren't many in need in no small part because food is already the cheapest in the world in the US. That's not an exaggeration [3].
If medicine were the cheapest in the world in the US then nobody would be calling for its socialization. The current system is an abject failure. The food market, while I disagree with it, would likely be defined as a success.
I'm saying that in other countries with socialized medicine costs are controlled far better. Medicare controls costs far better than the private sector. Canada's system costs half as much, covers everyone and is ranked better along basically ever major axis. Life expectancy is declining in the US. Healthcare in the US is among the worst in the OECD and far more expensive. [4]
I'm saying that it's not as big a leap as you make it out to be, and that there's lots of precedent, domestically and abroad.
> You are not defining coercion properly. It means force or threats of force.
Coercion (/koʊˈɜːrʒən, -ʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats or force. Threats or force. Pay up or get out and die is a threat, IMO, levvied by the system.
But even if you choose not to take that definition - it remains true (the only thing I've been arguing) that health care is not a voluntary contractual agreement but one taken out of necessity on an uneven playing field. This makes healthcare not a free market under most circumstances.
> Apparently you define all government spending as socialism, making the only other possible form of "govt" anarchy itself?
"In the theoretical works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and subsequent Marxist writers, socialization (or the socialization of production) is the process of transforming the act of producing and distributing goods and services from a solitary to a social relationship and collective endeavor." [1]
Socialization in a primarily capitalist economy is defined as taking a for-profit institution and transforming it into an institution collectively funded and carried out for the public benefit. If the government owns and operates a service for the public benefit it is a socialized service. It is socialism - well, democratic socialism/social democracy. It is not incompatible with freedom, or democracy, or private property rights.
Yes, these are all socialized services. Explicitly yes for Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE. [2]
The alternative to socialized services are privately owned and operated businesses. Not anarchy, necessarily, but libertarianism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization_(Marxism)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
[3] https://www.ibtimes.com/us-spends-less-food-any-other-countr...
[4] http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-at-a-glance...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I don't know what definition of deductible your insurance company is using, but it doesn't match my experience with any insurer ever, health or otherwise.
It's simple - I have a flat $500 copay for an "ER encounter" regardless of what they do in the ER. Just like you have a $40 or whatever copay for a regular doctor visit.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/051415/what-differe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of limited resources in Canada they had waiting times of several years (Google can point to multiple sources), UK or Nederlands a few months (I have friends working as doctors in these countries) or, in Eastern Europe, you need to get your own drugs from home because the hospital does not have it. With the perceived "free healthcare" the use increases a lot and the limited resources cannot scale up to infinit…
well it's your word against that of many other people I've seen raving about their system. how about a reliable source that says that people are unhappy with it?
And there are more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simple - I have a flat $500 copay for an "ER encounter" regardless of what they do in the ER. Just like you have a $40 or whatever copay for a regular doctor visit.
The deductible must be paid before copays come into play. If you have a $2,000 deductible, then you will pay whatever the insurance company has negotiated with the in network provider for the billing codes the provider bills, up to $2,000. After that, the copays amounts come into effect. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/051415/what-differe...
Most health insurance plans have a few services that are copay-limited even before you hit your deductible. i.e., the $40 for an office visit to your primary care doctor, $90 to see a specialist, and in my case $500 for the ER visit. Imaging and procedures are my problem from the start, up to the deductible though ... apparently unless they happen in the ER.
Like I said way up-thread, the way it's structured puts the incentives in the wrong place for me. Had my two visits for ER and scans been in the opposite order, I would have been out of pocket the same total.
Anyway - I'm done arguing with you. I know how my plan works and what I've paid this year, whether you believe me or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've lived in the US for more than 10 years. What you're saying there is a mix of half-truths. One is of course that "I suppose you can call it a kind of honor system," no, you can't, it's enforceable by law and actively collected upon. That's not an honor system. > And given your examples, you apparently aren't aware that when it comes to emergence care in the US, hospitals which have an emergency department are req…
> Yes, the bare minimum, then ejecting them out the back door as soon as they possibly can. New goalpost eh? No they generally just treat everyone fully and pass the cost on to people with insurance. Trying to transfer uninsured people out leads to lawsuits.
This was a digression and exploration of how your specific situation exists because of government intervention. The alternative is to let poor people die outside, and that's distasteful to me, and to most.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> until you start listening to politicians who have a vested interest in making the general public believe such things FTFY People "love their health insurance" when they have it forever through their employment, and feel safe in their position. 80% of people in the US, including 50% of Republicans, support M4A precisely because they are not part of the upper-crust minority who are afforded such luxuries.
I've never heard of a prominent Republican politician voice support for taxpayer funded healthcare. It would require a significant increase in federal income/FICA taxes. And in the enormous portion of federal spending that Medicare/Medicaid is, it doesn't even include outpatient services/medications for everyone over 65. Of course, this would be mitigated by the elimination of health insurance premiums and other redu…
Just goes to show where our "representative" democracy has gone. The number I quoted is for voters registered Republican.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Healthcare for 40% of Americans? Socialized. (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). Medicare is socialized medicine. > Americans pay less for food than anyone else and more for medicine than anyone else. Is your point then that food is cheap because it is socialized at a 100% rate as you want healthcare to be? Or that your references to socialism are all red herrings? Poor people can get free healthcare the same ways they get…
> Is your point then that food is cheap because it is socialized at a 100% rate as you want healthcare to be? Or that your references to socialism are all red herrings? My point is food is cheap because the government intervenes, it's not a free market as you make it out to be, and yes food is provided to those in need. However, there aren't many in need in no small part because food is already the cheapest in the wo…
"Threatening to not perform a service for someone" is not coercion, and does not invalidate a free market. A market is a place where scarce products can be exchanged between buyers and sellers who meet at an agreed upon price. The ability to refuse service is a prerequisite for having a market and the idea of private property itself, not some kind of unexpected flaw. The fact that something is scarce may well be problematic for some who cannot afford to outbid others who can afford it, but no system eliminates scarcity. Ask Venezuelans, who I am sure you were dying to talk about, what happens when you try to overcome scarcity with price fixing and free money. You simply achieve shortages.
In the 1980s the US did not have a 40 percent socialized system. The fraction of people on medicare was far less. Yet it was not the most expensive system in the world then. The US system is definitely failing, but it isn't the 300-year old market system that is causing it.
My state (Oregon) has protection against this. Unfortunately my emergency spinal operation was 2 months prior to the bill going into effect, so I got hit by this. The part that pissed me off was I KNEW about the practice and specifically made a fuss about making sure everyone in that OR was IN NETWORK. I went to an in network facility, my surgeon was in network, and so was the anesthesiologist and every person that e…
I had a similar experience. * I paid $20K out of pocket for a surgery that my insurer wouldn't cover. * This was supposed to pay for everything (surgery, anesthesia, hospital stay, etc.). * About 2 weeks post surgery, I got ANOTHER $20K bill from the hospital AND ANOTHER $1800 bill from the anesthesia group. * At the same time, I developed a complication from the surgery that put me in EXCRUCIATING pain. * Wife said…