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

The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

thecity.nyc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#161

Post by Veedrac »

tedunangst wrote: post #148
Veedrac wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK tests per million: 387 USA tests per million: 26 Not really the same.

There should be some adjustment for expected exposures, no?

If you believe the numbers, the UK has 6.9 per million infected, and the USA has 4.1, so they're pretty similar.

You shouldn't believe the numbers, though, because the USA is barely testing people—and not because they aren't sick; testing in the US is often expensive, as obviously idiotic as that is. I'd expect the USA to have a higher number of infected per capita in actuality.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#162

Post by kortilla »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #70
kortilla wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single payer healthcare for all has always been radical in the US. The Overton Window shifting to the left over the last decade is what has allowed Bernie to have any relevance at all.

Has it been? Those 65 and older (Medicare), those on assistance (Medicaid), and current/past military service members (Tricare) all appear to be very satisfied with their single payer healthcare. I genuinely don't understand why this is considered a radical idea when so many citizens are happy with this public benefit. This leads me to believe that the only cohort who believes it to be radical is that which is to be…

Yes, they are happy with it just like they are happy with social security income. The radical part (in the US) is suggesting that it should be available to everyone regardless of age (or veteran/military status) without any concrete plans to pay for it.

> This leads me to believe that the only cohort who believes it to be radical is that which is to be disrupted by such a policy.

Then you are being willfully myopic if you can’t possibly envision people who don’t have faith in the government to not cause a meaningful regression in care by destroying the private market. You can both be unhappy with the current opaque healthcare market and not support Medicare for all.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#163

Post by jacobush »

jopsen wrote: post #111
jacobush wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn’t dispatch triage if you need an ambulance or not?

In other countries they do that so aggressively that we have stroke victims dying, which an ambulance being dispatched. On the other hand, given that triage failures are rare -- cost/benfit wise it's probably better.

In countries where you can call an ambulance like a taxi, won't that lead to ambulances not being available to people who actually need them?

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#164

Post by jacobush »

lostmsu wrote: post #127
jacobush wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmm yeah I wonder. UK: someone dies of cancer or whatever. Enters the statistics as cancer death. Drags down outcome. USA: someone dies of cancer or whatever. Was poor. Gets buried. Cancer statistics unharmed.

You still have to report some cause of death.

And how well does that work do you think? Given how many are misdiagnosed or undiagnosed before death, how much money and effort do you think is spent on the cause of death for some random, (literally) poor corpse?

Of course "some" reason will be logged.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#165

Post by toomuchtodo »

kortilla wrote: post #162
toomuchtodo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it been? Those 65 and older (Medicare), those on assistance (Medicaid), and current/past military service members (Tricare) all appear to be very satisfied with their single payer healthcare. I genuinely don't understand why this is considered a radical idea when so many citizens are happy with this public benefit. This leads me to believe that the only cohort who believes it to be radical is that which is to be…

Yes, they are happy with it just like they are happy with social security income. The radical part (in the US) is suggesting that it should be available to everyone regardless of age (or veteran/military status) without any concrete plans to pay for it. > This leads me to believe that the only cohort who believes it to be radical is that which is to be disrupted by such a policy. Then you are being willfully myopic i…

> Then you are being willfully myopic if you can’t possibly envision people who don’t have faith in the government to not cause a meaningful regression in care by destroying the private market. You can both be unhappy with the current opaque healthcare market and not support Medicare for all.

I can't empathize with irrationality. We are at rock bottom. If you refuse the only life raft in sight in the ocean, you have only yourself to blame for the suffering you inflict on yourself and others.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#166

Post by platetone »

dhuduehe wrote: post #137
platetone wrote: post #15

We decided (slash "made the mistake") of going to the emergency room last summer. Spent less than two hours in an exam room before being dismissed with no conclusion and referral to another doctor. Got a $9500 bill about six months later and have been billed a 10% copay on that (insurance paid $5500 already at their negotiated rate). Still fighting it as absolutely absurd, but there's really no hope. This country is…

What made you decide to go to the ER instead of scheduling an appointment with your GP out of curiosity?

it was acute gut-wreching pain that we weren't sure what to do about, didn't know if it was going to get worse... we should have gone to an "urgent care" clinic, which was our mistake.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#167

Post by platetone »

outworlder wrote: post #83
platetone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i work for a tech company in the fortune 500 top 25... i would assume the best insurance possible, still killing us (paid nearly $7000 out of pocket last year + the actual premium costs of several thousand more). i've got three small kids including one with a heart condition, so it's particularly bad right now.

> i would assume the best insurance possible That's usually not a good assumption to make, not even among the FANG. There is extreme variability even with the same insurance company, depending on the negotiation between the company and the provider. And very few companies actually have any incentive to even provide the best 'possible' coverage.

Just looked it up and we're only in the top 50 (insert crying smiley).

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#168

Post by sailfast »

CydeWeys wrote: post #104
sailfast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but you also benefit from the fact that it's an HDHP, right? Must you be on an HDHP (because the other plan is too expensive, or because another plan is not offered) or did you choose the HDHP even when presented with the options? The big up-front deductible and an HSA is pretty much the point of the plan, and it's mostly advantageous to those that are young and/or don't have to go to the doctor that often, wi…

The HDHP works out in years in which you need no medical treatment beyond the covered annual physical. Once you start needing anything, it ends up being a worse option. I discovered this a few years ago when I broke my ankle. The big upfront deductible seems like exactly the wrong way to structure a healthcare plan, as it disincentives getting treatment until things get really bad.

True, but if you can offset that with an HSA to cover your entire deductible and sweep the rest into a qualifying retirement plan it makes a lot of sense _and_ you don't have to worry as much about the deductible. Note: I am on a typical PPO and optimizing for minimum catastrophic amounts, generally so this is not the way I usually go but many colleagues seem to like these plans

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#169

Post by lostmsu »

jacobush wrote: post #164
lostmsu wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still have to report some cause of death.

And how well does that work do you think? Given how many are misdiagnosed or undiagnosed before death, how much money and effort do you think is spent on the cause of death for some random, (literally) poor corpse? Of course "some" reason will be logged.

You were implying, that sloppiness leads to reduced cancer statistics, painting a better picture for the US. Well, if another cause of death is used instead, the picture will look worse for it. There is no escape.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#170

Post by jacobush »

lostmsu wrote: post #169
jacobush wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how well does that work do you think? Given how many are misdiagnosed or undiagnosed before death, how much money and effort do you think is spent on the cause of death for some random, (literally) poor corpse? Of course "some" reason will be logged.

You were implying, that sloppiness leads to reduced cancer statistics, painting a better picture for the US. Well, if another cause of death is used instead, the picture will look worse for it. There is no escape.

I think it might actually!

(Like obesity, heart failure, complex some-or-other, "natural causes", take your pick.)

Post reply on HN