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

31–40 of 121 posts

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

#31

Post by baddox »

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.

> His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect.

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.

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

#32

Post by flagnog »

angersock wrote: post #3
abat wrote: post #2

For a lot of stuff, the idea of pre-negotiating price between patient and provider sounds great. I'm not sure how emergency care can work well though without some third party to help set fair pricing. You get taken to a hospital out of your control, and they're allowed to decide what services to provide and as well as the price they're going to charge you. After the fact your only leverage to negotiate the bill down…

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.

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

#33

Post by munificent »

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 reasonable upfront cash price for the
    outpatient surgical/nursing services.
And what would have been his recourse if the doctors all came back and said, "Sorry, $20,000 is our best offer. Pony up!"?

It's not like you can typically elect not to get medical care without dire consequences, so the demand structure is totally broken for an efficient market.

And, of course, we're taking the doctor at his word that his price was "reasonable". How on Earth is a layperson supposed to know what a "reasonable" price for a medical operation is? I don't even know what a reasonable price for having a plumber come over and fix a leaky drain is!

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

#34

Post by umsm »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #15

In my experience having a high-deductible health insurance policy that that I purchase myself I think this bit of the article can't be understated. "I explained that just because he had health insurance didn’t mean he had to use it in every situation. After all, when people have a minor fender-bender, they often settle it privately rather than file an insurance claim. Because of the nature of this man’s policy, he co…

I'm not a health-care professional, so I don't know: But wouldn't you be able to not tell the hospital that you have insurance? Pretend like you don't have any from the beginning? Or can this backfire?

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

#35

Post by moron4hire »

It's as if there were a monopoly on health care and the monopoly is charging whatever they think they can get away with. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you!

Sarcasm aside, I didn't know about these "preferred provider" contracts. That's just some good-old, down-home, anti-competitive behavior, right there.

Instead, we have a DOJ more interested in chasing after and "making an example of" young men who violate a university network use policy. Damn, I bet Rockefeller wishes he were still alive.

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

#36

Post by nether »

zellyn wrote: post #7
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."

Every time I hear how much Lasik surgery has improved , I'm gladder I haven't let those damned lasers anywhere near my eyes. :-) For the hackernews spin, this trick works for software too - I learned it at my first job, where each client had a different stack and we had to evaluate lots of enterprisey vendors: look at the improvements. The same thing that makes vendors tell you their software will make you toast and…

I'm glad I bit the bullet and got lasik last year. It beats the nonzero risk of eye infection every time I touch my eyes with contact lenses. These problems can cause vision loss and sometimes require eye removal: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20061010/lasik-surgery-...

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

#37

Post by JohnTHaller »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #22
jacobolus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be rightly skeptical of an athlete’s endorsement of a brand of shoes they are being paid to sponsor, even though a disinterested athlete would be well qualified to comment, as a professional. Similarly, in this case “paid for by the Koch brothers” is the most relevant part of his qualification here, not “surgeon”.

Just because he is allied with the Koch brothers doesn't mean he's wrong.

But it does mean his facts are more likely to be wrong. Or lacking the full story and the other facts that disprove his point and are conveniently left out. Remember, the Cato Institute (Koch brothers) and News Corporation (Murdoch) are intentionally biased organizations that design studies and stories to make specific points that further their agenda. This anti-'ObamaCare' piece in the WSJ carries about as much weight as a pro-'ObamaCare' piece in a left-biased rag.

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

#38

Post by jbooth »

baddox wrote: post #16
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."

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 procedure happen without taking a loss on it.

But it's an inaccurate simplification to consider healthcare a market like any other -- inaccurate simplifications hurt any system and that's why our current 'market' system has more bureaucratic red tape, higher prices and worse outcomes than actual socialist systems in the rest of the western economies.

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

#39

Post by cgag »

baddox wrote: post #16
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."

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…

Isn't most of the country obese? And don't we breed crops to look good over being nutritious? Aren't large portions of the population without reasonable access to grocery stores?

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

#40

Post by umsm »

On a similar note: many hospitals can and will negotiate your bill after the fact. A family member has had procedures performed that cost in excess of $20k, but was able to negotiate the bill to less than $5k. Although I am not sure if this is the norm.
Post reply on HN