Live data from Hacker News

Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

nytimes.com

351–360 of 440 posts

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#351

That it takes such effort to pass a bill like this - 80% public approval, banning a clearly predatory practice, has turned me from a pure free market thinking into a believer in single payer healthcare. The free market just doesn't work when there is very little elasticity in consumption. I've been on the receiving end of a $15K air ambulance bill (thankfully covered by insurance) as well as the out of network specia…

As an immigrant coming to America, honestly the most shocking and surprising thing (apart from the state of homeless in San Francisco being tolerated as normal) is the medical care expenses. How on Earth is it that I can walk into a doctor's office or hospital to get medical treatment and have no idea how much it's going to cost? $10? $100? $1000? Who knows. I had an ear infection once, went to the doctor who looked…

It's safe to assume talking to a doctor is a minimum of $400. Any labs or testing, another $400. Surgery starts in the thousands. Life saving care is the same cost as a house.

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. My wife is actually having the same procedure done for the second time after Christmas. Naturally the doctor is in-network, but his surgical facility (on the same floor, immediately adjacent to the doctor's offices) isn't. So it's fork out $1500 and fight insurance to reimburse us after the fact. In her case, the epidural really does give her life back by completely killing the pressure and migraines that otherw…

There's this idea that "single payer" will pay for "anything I want" and it seems to me that evidence for this is sorely lacking.

Does the NHS not cover treatment for documented, debilitating migraines? I would be shocked to hear that it doesn't. In fact I think I would be surprised to hear if the NHS doesn't cover anything as long as it isn't something like cosmetic surgery.

There is no reason single payer shouldn't or couldn't cover 99% of most medical needs.

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then it would not be truly free because you would need to make decisions in a medical emergency with limited options. It would be like shopping for a dentist with an abscess that could kill you tomorrow.

That would only apply to the 10% of medical costs spent on emergency care. It makes little sense to operate the other 90% based on requirements that don't exist in those cases. Emergency care is also inherently local. You could operate emergency rooms under the same framework as you do fire departments. Which doesn't require a national fire department to manufacture the fire extinguishers you buy for your house or re…

But also doesn't require fire insurance for someone to try pulling you out of a burning building.

I think diseases that take longer but are still affecting your quality of life are just as important to consider, but also think they distort decision making and fail to work like a free market as a result. The "free market" has failed to provide affordable dental care outside large insurance policies, which are inaccessible to almost a quarter of americans, for example. https://www.coloniallife.com/employer-resource-center/2018/a...

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#354
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people wear a tag with their blood group on it. Perhaps we should be wearing tags with the amount of money we're willing to spend on a hospital visit.

I'm curious, would this even be essentially "accepted" by any hospital in the US? Not just a tag, but if you were going in for a procedure, could you even say "I want to be sure I will not be treated by anyone not covered by my insurance plan"? Because basically all the forms you need to sign upon admittance essentially say "We can charge you whatever we want and you are responsible for paying it."

They would tell you that you need to talk to billing, and billing would tell you they can't provide pricing at all and they can only tell you after going through your insurance, or they would require a zillion digit billing code that only your doctors can provide, and your doctors are not going to waste their time giving you the list of a thousand codes for whatever operation you're doing, or at least not accurately.

In short there is no way. Either you accept treatment and you're billed what you're billed and you hope insurance only fucks you over a little bit, or you're denied any service short of immediate life saving.

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#355
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is inappropriate word choice here or anywhere. Remove your slur.

re·tard verb past tense: retarded; past participle: retarded /riˈtärd/ delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment. "our progress was retarded by unforeseen difficulties" It seems to me that the word's usage is an accurate description of America's lack of progress in this area...

[deleted]

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So food is cheap because the govt intervenes, ignoring the giant private market, and healthcare is expensive because of the private market, ignoring the massive govt intervention. How convenient. "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 pric…

> So food is cheap because the govt intervenes, ignoring the giant private market, and healthcare is expensive because of the private market, ignoring the massive govt intervention. How convenient.

The only thing convenient is you not addressing my point :) The government intervention is a desparate attempt at not letting people die of disease and pestilence literally outside a point of care. You're asking for a dystopian hellscape. And that's what much of the last 300 years was with respect to medical care.

> 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.

Yes it is.

Canada had a similar system until the 1970s, and it was bad. Then it switched over and things got better. America remained on the private system and it just got worse and worse.

Venezuela is totally and utterly irrelevant to this conversation. There are so many functioning systems with socialized medicine (all of Europe, especially the Scandinavians, Canada, Taiwan, etc, etc), Venezuela is an outlier and not even worth discussing. It's a failed state.

Whether you call it coercion or a power differential (you will die, the insurer or provider won't) this precludes a voluntary meeting of the minds necessary in a free market. Period.

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#357
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I've never heard of a prominent Republican politician voice support for taxpayer funded healthcare. Just goes to show where our "representative" democracy has gone. The number I quoted is for voters registered Republican.

People will talk the talk, but they won’t walk the walk when it comes to paying.

My conversations are usually reminiscent of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2TxX0E4U1A

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you don't want to search, try this: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wa... . Or on camera here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw And there are more.

your sources are a conservative thinktank, and noted bigot and liar Steven Crowder

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/new-poll-shows-canadians... - Canadians Overwhelmingly Support Public Health Care

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/public-satisfaction-nh... - 60% public satisfaction with NHS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2071992/ - "US has highest dissatisfaction with health care" (out of 7 industrialized countries they asked: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States)

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nope, I've only got one goalpost. To express that healthcare cannot be a free market. 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.

No the poor received charity, directly from the hospitals. In fact historically, hospitals were charities, many still are. And the rest still provide it too. In the story I linked the uninsured person's whole problem was that he earned too much to qualify for the hospital's financial aid program, so had to negotiate to get a lower bill.

Re: Congress is set to ban most surprise medical bills

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> socialized healthcare and that dream of free healthcare for all is an impossible utopia, you just need to think about it to realize I can't understand this argument when Canada, England, France, Israel, and many other countries already have healthcare that is totally free to people at the point of service, and people rave about it. Can you explain why you still think it's utopian when it already exists?

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…

>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

First, EVEN if what you are saying is true (spoiler alert- it's not). There are always private options if you really want to pay for it. So your argument of "there are wait times" basically goes away, because if you really want something "like you have now", you can pay and get it.

Next, what is better.. never being able to afford an elective/non urgent surgery, or wait 4-6 weeks (or perhaps even longer) for it? The point is you will get it and not go bankrupt.

And if it's urgent, you get it right away. Anything else you have heard is bullshit or has some other context you don't realize.

I mean, do you realize how many people in this country are living with conditions that probably even being able to go to a doctor on a regular basis would massively improve their life? But they can't afford it- even with "insurance".

>I hate the system in US, but at least it gives a chance to people who can afford it;

>here, everybody is equally screwed.

How do those two statements make any sense? You literally just said it gives a chance to people who can afford it... then claim everybody is equally screwed. No they aren't. It's like anything else- the top maybe 10-20% have no issues with it because they can afford it. So fuck everyone else right? The same top 10-20% who just love that the stock market booms during a pandemic because they can just continue to print more money.

Man your attitude pisses me off.

>The only thing that works well here is giving birth, that is free, you can cover that by the state or federal in US too

The hell are you talking about? "Insurance" covers birth yeah, but it'll still generally max out most peoples deductibles so it's still thousands and thousands of dollars... and heaven forbid you have a c-section or some other complicated birth.

Also, I lived in the UK for a number of years. We had so many trips to the doctor for our birth. Cost? Fucking 0. Yeah peoples taxes are a bit higher once you make descent money, but that's the damn point! People who can afford it are paying into a system that makes everyone better off.

We should be trying to make EVERYONE AS A WHOLE better off, not only the top 10-20% which is apparently what your logic is.

Post reply on HN