Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#41

Post by nether »

stephengillie wrote: post #9
bmmayer1 wrote: post #4

"Take the examples of Lasik eye surgery or cosmetic surgery. These services are not covered by insurance. Providers compete on the basis of quality, outcomes and price. And prices have continually dropped as quality and services have improved—unlike the rest of health care." Sadly, most people forget this. They think that healthcare is somehow immune from the laws of economics, that it is "special."

Some major insurance companies covered LASIK about 10 years ago, but have since stopped. My LASIK was paid 100% by my insurance co in 2003. I heard the logic that paying $2000 in 2003 was cheaper than paying $150-300 per year for exams, lenses & frames for 10-15 years.

I paid out of pocket for mine, but breakeven for me was 5 years because I previously wore one-day contacts ($$). For most contacts-wearers breakeven is around 10 years.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#42

Post by BrandonY »

flagnog wrote: post #32
angersock wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a wild idea: emergency care should be handled by the state, and just accepted as the cost of living in a modern civilized society.

Here's a better idea: require all hospitals and Dr offices to publish fee schedules in a centralized location, allowing the customer to price-shop procedures. Then there would be downward pressure on prices, and you could plan in advance of elective procedures.

Operator, I'm having a heart attack! Please direct me to the nearest centralized location of the fee schedule, so that I might begin studying my options.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#43

Post by Ensorceled »

munificent wrote: post #33

God, what a terrible article. So we canceled the surgery and started the scheduling process all over again, this time classifying my patient as a "self-pay" (or uninsured) patient. Yeah, how well does that strategy work when you're having a heart attack and are moments from death? I quoted him a reasonable upfront cash price, as did the anesthesiologist. We contacted a different hospital and they quoted him a reasona…

How does that make the article terrible?

He's not saying that this is a good thing he's using this as an example of how broken the medical system is. Did you read to the end? Or did you just get annoyed after the first few paragraphs and write this screed?

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#44

Post by jusben1369 »

munificent wrote: post #33

God, what a terrible article. So we canceled the surgery and started the scheduling process all over again, this time classifying my patient as a "self-pay" (or uninsured) patient. Yeah, how well does that strategy work when you're having a heart attack and are moments from death? I quoted him a reasonable upfront cash price, as did the anesthesiologist. We contacted a different hospital and they quoted him a reasona…

I see this argument a lot. It's really unhelpful if you're trying to resolve the big challenges. The reality is that around about 90% of all healthcare spend can be done in a normal, thought out manner. The car accident/heart attack/ambulance can I negotiate my surgery dialogue is such a small part that using it really distracts away from the main issues.

This was an incredibly disturbing story. It's a pity that it takes a partisan tone at the end. You can just as easily draw the conclusion that all of this pricing shenanigans would be solved by a single government body setting prices for surgery as you can for opening it up entirely to market forces.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#45

Post by JohnTHaller »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #29
baddox wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're fine with the ideas presented in the article, until you realize that the author is associated with groups that tend to share those ideas? I don't understand.

His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. His motivation is clear in that it was designed to be an anti-'ObamaCare' piece, which fits right in with the Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Murdoch's mission. Just as the facts and full story would be suspect in a pro-ObamaCare piece on MSNBC or Daily Kos.

> That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox)

The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#46

Post by ars »

If you choose to buy partial insurance (for example high deductible, AKA major medical insurance) make sure you buy one with very good negotiators!

The value you get from paying below list price will likely be more than the value from the insurance payments.

The patient in this article didn't have such a plan, they have essentially a HSA, they paid a premium to have some cash paid toward procedures, but the "insurance" company didn't do any work on his behalf to lower the premiums - because they have no reason to, they pay a fixed amount.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#47

Post by JohnTHaller »

gwright wrote: post #25
JohnTHaller wrote: post #13

There are some interesting tidbits in the article, but it falls apart in the last paragraph when we see the true motive of the article: "Sadly, we are heading in the exact opposite direction. ObamaCare expands the role of the third party and practically eliminates the role—and the say—of the patient in the delivery of health care. Will they ever learn?" And then you see the writer's bumper at the end: "Dr. Singer pra…

You seem to be suggesting that the only valid opinions on any topic are those that originate from a person without any bias but who is somehow intimately informed about the topic. Those people generally don't exist. The best we can hope for is some reasonable amount of transparency along with a variety of opinions.

The best we can hope for is people attempting to take their personal bias out of reporting and investigate the full story, especially when what happened contradicts their worldview. Real journalists do this. News Corporation (Fox News/WSJ/etc) specifically does the opposite.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#48

Post by millstone »

I entered in thinking it was journalism, and it wasn't until the end that I realized I had been reading an editorial. That colored what I had just read, but it's my fault for missing the "Opinion" category at top.

The anecdote was interesting and informative. If nothing else, Americans should remember to ask about "cash discounts" at health care providers.

The conclusions, though, are pure whargarbl:

    "the only way to make health care more affordable
    is to diminish the role of third-party payers."
Really? The ONLY way? That's how all other countries do it?

    "ObamaCare expands the role of the third party and
    practically eliminates the role—and the say—of
    the patient in the delivery of health care."
This patient lowered his bill by exercising his "role and say," and that illustrates that Obamacare has eliminated the role and say of patients. Wait, what?

If this patient had been negatively affected by Obamacare in any way, I'm sure the author would have gleefully pointed it out.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#49

Post by baddox »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #45
JohnTHaller wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. His motivation is clear in that it was designed to be an anti-'ObamaCare' piece, which fits right in with the Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Murdoch's mission. Just as the facts and full story would be suspect in a pro-ObamaCare piece on MSNBC or Daily Kos.

> That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox) The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from pe…

> The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured.

Not so. If facts can't be independently verified or objectively measured, then that's case whether they're spoken by a well-known expert in the field or a well-known liar.

Re: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less

#50

Post by AlisdairSH »

jbooth wrote: post #38
baddox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people will unabashedly say that they believe healthcare to be special. It's not uncommon to hear people say that they don't believe profit motive has any place in healthcare. I don't buy it. I don't see how healthcare is any more special than, say, food production (both are obviously vital to health), yet I think most people have come around to recognizing that profit motive is a spectacular way to organize the…

Of course healthcare is special, it's not a normal market because of extreme demand inelasticity. Food is special too, but it manages to function as a market because we have a food surplus, a plethora of replacement goods within the food category and it's much less specialized to produce. This doesn't mean that people don't deserve to earn a living. The doctor in the article managed to find a way to make the man's pr…

Emergency medicine is inelastic and not conducive to price shopping and other research.

But, what percentage of medicine falls into that category?

For example, I currently have a shoulder injury. I'm meeting with an ortho specialist next week. And it will likely require surgery to correct.

So, while I "need" the surgery, there's no real hurry. I could take an extra week to meet with several providers and ask about pricing.

Of course, I won't do that, because my medical plan is paying the vast majority of the cost. I'll just get nickle-and-dimed with co-pays for the next 6 months.

Post reply on HN