The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills • Hacker News Board

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#291

Post by Devthrowaway80 » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #235

Devthrowaway80 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it won't work. It works in every other developed nation in the world, and they all pay less money for better healthcare outcomes, but hey, the US is Totally Special.

> It works in every other developed nation in the world The cost side works in every other developed nation? Surely you're aware of how much more expensive health care costs are in the US, so what might you be referring to?

Yes, I am aware. One of the benefits of single-payer is the reduction in cost of administration.

There are other effects as well - nobody is getting away with billing $600 for a 5 minute visit, for instance.

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#292

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:27 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #289

madengr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Took my wife to the ER last week for suspect appendicitis or diverticulitis. Last time this happened a CT scan alone was $3k ($11k prior to insurance reduction). My HDP is $4,500 OOP max per family member; $8,500 for family. What really pisses me off is that the HSA max contribution has not kept up with family OOP max. I contribute the max every year and can't end up with $8,500 saved. I had a decent insurance p…

New Zealand example full unsubsidised price list for CT scan: http://www.riverradiology.co.nz/diagnostic-solutions/price-l... $500 NZ versus $11000 US - maybe there is something wrong with your health system.

Yes, the lack of pricing transparency (and maybe even regulation) is a problem.

Average price for a CT scan is probably between $1000 and $2000 though.

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#293

Post by ciconia » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #4

Over here (in Europe) we get the impression that US has such a crazy healthcare system. Why aren't people marching in the streets? Is it not as crazy as it sounds for most users? If you're taken to ER how are you supposed to know if the doctors are all part of "your network" (whatever that even means)?

> Why aren't people marching in the streets?

Americans seem to have always preferred so-called "freedom" to social solidarity. It's every man for himself over there in the land of the free.

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#294

Post by joe_the_user » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

dankohn1 wrote: post #275

joe_the_user wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's quibbling. If votes to abolish the rule for a case are available, it's reasonable for a single suspension vote to be possible to. Both sorts of actions decrease the power of individual senators. If anything, abolishing for a whole category reduces senator's power more - if you also read the article, the basic point is the action indeed altered the power dynamic, what those considering individual senato…

It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether the 60 vote threshold can survive for any kind of legislation in the future. In particular, here is an argument that American democracy is doomed because of the way partisanship ratchets towards more extreme mechanics over time: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom... However, it remains the case that in 2009, 59 senators were ready to vote f…

Sure, 59 People were ready to vote but not so ready they'd take the action to remove the limit.

Those are the facts. You are laying emphasis on the one person who wouldn't vote and I'm laying emphasis on the 51+ wouldn't take take stronger action.

I think it's reasonable to give my emphasis given the way the Democratic Party has behaved over time.

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#295

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:37 PM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #253

dv_dt wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only the insurance model, but the encouragement of health insurance as an employer benefit. It adds one more aspect of indirection to an already complex health system.

Almost any politician will tell you that taxing employer-sponsored health insurance is a "3rd rail". Almost any economist will say this is one of the largest problems with US health care costs and employment mobility.

The ACA should have relaxed employer requirements and pushed people to exchanges; instead, it increased employer requirements.

It also probably should have used subsidies instead of Medicaid expansion. Expensive, but a bunch of healthy people would have been good for the exchanges (Medicaid expansion almost by definition was for healthy working people).

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#296

Post by refurb » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:43 PM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #277

refurb wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

System works here. Sure people can cite edge cases, but they are relatively rare. Not sure these are just "edge cases"... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/patients-live...

Lets compare the 'horrible edge case' rate of the USA compared to Canada now.

How about we compare Canada's edge cases to countries other than the US. How does it stack up?

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#297

Post by ComradeTaco » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #286

tptacek wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the problems addressed by the Democratic health care bill are orthogonal to some other problem you care deeply about is not, logically, evidence that the Republicans and Democrats are "indistinguishable" when it comes to health care. The status quo ante of the ACA was a system in which millions of people were locked out of insurance by fiat due to pre-existing condition bans. For those people, all provi…

Right, which increases revenue for the medical establishment, while also helping some people (and harming others) in the process. For me to consider the Democrats as the true party of the people rather than a tool of corporations, I'd want to see the cost side of health care addressed as well. My question is: was it?

Obamacare only reduced the growth of healthcare costs, it did not stop the growth. The approach that most democrats believe would reduce cost is single payer or Medicaid for all.

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#298

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #286

tptacek wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the problems addressed by the Democratic health care bill are orthogonal to some other problem you care deeply about is not, logically, evidence that the Republicans and Democrats are "indistinguishable" when it comes to health care. The status quo ante of the ACA was a system in which millions of people were locked out of insurance by fiat due to pre-existing condition bans. For those people, all provi…

Right, which increases revenue for the medical establishment, while also helping some people (and harming others) in the process. For me to consider the Democrats as the true party of the people rather than a tool of corporations, I'd want to see the cost side of health care addressed as well. My question is: was it?

[deleted]

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#299

Post by dankohn1 » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:53 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #294

dankohn1 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether the 60 vote threshold can survive for any kind of legislation in the future. In particular, here is an argument that American democracy is doomed because of the way partisanship ratchets towards more extreme mechanics over time: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom... However, it remains the case that in 2009, 59 senators were ready to vote f…

Sure, 59 People were ready to vote but not so ready they'd take the action to remove the limit. Those are the facts. You are laying emphasis on the one person who wouldn't vote and I'm laying emphasis on the 51+ wouldn't take take stronger action. I think it's reasonable to give my emphasis given the way the Democratic Party has behaved over time.

And we reached agreement! I thought that can never happen on discussion boards.

Re: The Company Behind Many Surprise Emergency Room Bills

#300

Post by 0xbear » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 10:57 PM UTC

ComradeTaco wrote: post #297

mistermann wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which increases revenue for the medical establishment, while also helping some people (and harming others) in the process. For me to consider the Democrats as the true party of the people rather than a tool of corporations, I'd want to see the cost side of health care addressed as well. My question is: was it?

Obamacare only reduced the growth of healthcare costs, it did not stop the growth. The approach that most democrats believe would reduce cost is single payer or Medicaid for all.

As far as I can tell by looking at my premiums, it actually significantly sped up the growth of costs. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise with a straight face.