Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#371

Post by bmmayer1 » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #310

bmmayer1 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> squeezing money out of insurance companies because they can FTFY. But seriously, how can it possibly be the hospital's fault for doing exactly what the law and market incentives give them every reason to do? There's almost no downward pressure on prices: little competition, no transparent pricing, huge barriers to market entry, and third party payers.

Nobody's denying the facts you gave...lack of competition, lack of transparent pricing, etc. But to use people's lives as leverage to extract absurd amounts of money goes well beyond being immoral, it's just downright evil .

If making money from using people's lives as leverage is evil, then let's go ahead and condemn doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, insulin injector manufacturers, and lifeguards while we're at it.

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#372

Post by bmmayer1 » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #355

s73v3r_ wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But seriously, how can it possibly be the hospital's fault for doing exactly what the law and market incentives give them every reason to do? " Because they're the ones actually doing it? Because they're run by adults who are fully capable of taking responsibility for their actions?

The US (and others, but the US especially) has a long-standing practice of divesting corporations from the responsibility for their actions. Worse, it's frequently the same people who argue that corporations are "people" arguing that corporations as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

A profit-making corporation exists to make a profit, which isn't illegal or immoral, so I fail to see what 'responsibility' they have other than continuing to do what their shareholders have literally given them money to do. Your problem is with the system, not with my grandma whose pension fund is invested in the hospital.

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#373

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 6:27 PM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #371

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's denying the facts you gave...lack of competition, lack of transparent pricing, etc. But to use people's lives as leverage to extract absurd amounts of money goes well beyond being immoral, it's just downright evil .

If making money from using people's lives as leverage is evil, then let's go ahead and condemn doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, insulin injector manufacturers, and lifeguards while we're at it.

I'm almost rendered speechless at the absurdity of your suggestion.

Of course they deserve to be paid. And paid quite nicely, too, considering the education levels needed to work such jobs (Lifeguards, obviously requiring significantly less than doctors)!

But they can be paid nicely while charging reasonable prices. The $164k the hospital charged that man for his heart attack is beyond unreasonable.

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#374

Post by woobar » Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #354

woobar wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in this particular case insurance did investigate actual (or within a reason) costs and paid them. But there is no business relationship between the insurance company and an out-of-network provider. Should they go to the court on behalf of the patient? As a customer I'd like this. But it looks like combining health and legal insurances. Another option is maybe to require that language on the "patient responsi…

Is there an analogy in the car insurance world? Let's say I know nothing about cars and I get in a collision somewhere far away from home. I need a repair th let's say I know nothing about cars and I get in a collision somewhere far away from home. I need some bodywork and a replacement for the flimflam crankslap in the engine. The shop knows that I don't know anything about cars, and they know that I am covered by i…

> What is stopping them from charging me an exorbitant rate

Nothing. That's why everyone always asks for a good and trustworthy mechanic. Or an HVAC repairman.

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#375

Post by apetresc » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:18 AM UTC

rabidrat wrote: post #74

apetresc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Later in that correction paragraph, it says: > In a statement, the hospital said this offer was contingent on Calver submitting his application for a discount based on his household finances. Calver disputed that he owes any additional money to St. David’s and said this situation should have been resolved long before now. I might be misreading, but is this saying that Calver isn't going to accept even the $700 charge…

He shouldn't have to submit for a "discount" based on his "household finances" anyway! What if he doesn't qualify after all? Does he owe $100k if he makes more than $70k/year? Actually what level of income should be the low threshold for having to pay $100k after insurance for your life-critical health event?

I'm not saying he's wrong on the principle. I'm saying I wouldn't have the guts to risk $108,300 just for a chance to maybe win a moral victory over $700.

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#376

Post by bmmayer1 » Mon, Sep 03, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #373

bmmayer1 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If making money from using people's lives as leverage is evil, then let's go ahead and condemn doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, insulin injector manufacturers, and lifeguards while we're at it.

I'm almost rendered speechless at the absurdity of your suggestion. Of course they deserve to be paid. And paid quite nicely, too, considering the education levels needed to work such jobs (Lifeguards, obviously requiring significantly less than doctors)! But they can be paid nicely while charging reasonable prices. The $164k the hospital charged that man for his heart attack is beyond unreasonable.

But who gets to decide what is 'reasonable?' The point of the parent post is that there are no forces keeping prices down besides this vague standard of 'reasonableness', which obviously isn't very useful. Shame doesn't bring down prices; competition and structural reforms do.

Re: Insured, but Still Owing $109K for a Heart Attack

#377

Post by ArchTypical » Tue, Sep 04, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

NearAP wrote: post #252

ArchTypical wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying 300-500/mo for decades, as a chronic heart patient here. I've had multiple open heart surgeries and nothing sweeter than paying 6k for the recovery room and 0 for the surgery (along with sweet receipts for 1mil in aggregate surgery costs). The separate billing is a pointless red herring, in context of the article. $10,920 for room charges is absolutely ludicrous.

I'm curious - do you think the figures for room and board is generally high? Or do you just think it is high for the city? I'm asking because a friend was in the hospital in the bay area for 7 days and his room and board was approximately $21,000

I had my surgeries in the middle of Los Angeles (Kaiser - 4867 W Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90027). My insurance covered 7 days, but I paid for additional recovery time at about 2k a day.

In regard to your friend ... his 7 x 2 = $14k. That's a LOT for basically a bed, blood draws daily, limited TV and cafeteria food, but in the center of Los Angeles, that's what you get.