Using AI to negotiate a $195k hospital bill down to $33k

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 6:53 PM UTC

jack_tripper wrote: post #82

jacquesm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be quite hard to run up a million euros in debt to a hospital in Europe, but in the USA that is not at all unheard of.

You're missing the point completely. I was not talking about why hospital debt is big, but the difference in how debt in general of all sizes gets collected. Because in most of Europe even a 50 Euro debt will be collected, medical or not. while in the US it seems you can live just fine with a lot of debt that somehow nobody bothers to collect. And your hospital in Europe DOES collect the half million Euro bill, for s…

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 6:54 PM UTC

flatline wrote: post #230

whimsicalism wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard to believe you say we aren't subject to rationing when pre-authorization is as big as it is. If you want to see true rationing, look to the UK (especially) or Canada (less so) where I know plenty of people who have to wait over a year to see a specialist even after doctor referral. Meanwhile, my parents in the US at a hospital get a CT scan, MRI 'just in case' immediately (or close-to for the MRI) and pay noth…

I waited over three years to get a routine colonoscopy in New Mexico and finally just got one after moving out of state. More standard waits for a specialist there are 9-18 months, if you can even find someone competent in the specialty. Many people have to go out of state for care. Provider availability is non-uniform across the US.

Post by Izikiel43 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 6:55 PM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #158

fatnoah wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The wider implications of this are left to the reader. IMHO, it's actually worse than we realize. The Medical Loss Ratio requirement is good because it requires insurance companies to spend 80% or 85% of premiums on health care. It's bad because one way for insurance companies to make more money is to have inflated health care prices to justify increasing premiums so they can get 80% of a bigger pie. It also gives t…

> one way for insurance companies to make more money is to have inflated health care prices to justify increasing premiums This only makes sense if they have no competitors since another insurance company would just steal their customers by having lower rates. The truth is though, healthcare providers are ultimately responsible for prices.

Post by dboreham » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 6:55 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #268

chrisgeleven wrote: post #245

I fought insurance over this past summer after they declined covering a life saving surgery for my 6-year-old child at the last minute. We were in despair that my child's life was at risk each day we waited because of insurance incompetence. ChatGPT literally guided me through the whole external appeal process, who to contact outside of normal channels to ask for help / apply pressure, researched questions I had, hel…

I was under the impression that if you were to go to an emergency room, life saving surgery would be scheduled regardless of who is paying (or not paying), due to EMTALA. I can't imagine a hospital waiting for an insurance company's approval to pay for a procedure to schedule a child's life saving surgery. Is this incorrect?

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 6:55 PM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #275

egorfine wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Medicare has a total enrollment of approximately 69 million people, while Medicaid has around 83 million people. That is 152 million people. We already have socialized medicine we just run it poorly and don't apply it to people that can pay. Moving our system to 340 million people + letting our corporations out of paying would put the US into an economic death spiral. US corporations would love this plan. But at 340…