Hahaha I did take it out myself. It wasn't my first rodeo with stitches...mainly me though lolbssage said:
Health care (Moved from Obama vs Romney poll)...
- Thread starter Testing
- Start date
Thank you, Mom2Many, for that perspective. But that picture doesn't show the solid gold cast they made for the toe, which certainly must have been included in that $3,000 figure.
A bud (co worker) of mine had a heart issue last month. He went to the hospital for three days for testing. They think it was a blockage that dissolved and did not show on the tests.
He told me the bill prior to insurance was 80k. I mean I know what your saying when we say: I would just rather pay as needed than be forced to get insurance. But really I dont know about you all. My peers and myself do not have 80k just laying about.
He told me the bill prior to insurance was 80k. I mean I know what your saying when we say: I would just rather pay as needed than be forced to get insurance. But really I dont know about you all. My peers and myself do not have 80k just laying about.
My grandma had amazing insurance. She retired from Eaton, and also worked part time, so she never had to pay anything out of pocket since part of her severance pay from Eaton was lifetime insurance.bssage said:
Her stroke, cost her almost $80k. her heart attack, that ultimately was the reason she died, cost well over $100k. Long story short we ended up suing a lot of people, but if she wouldn't have had multiple insurances, she could not have afforded any of it.
People aren't likely to have $18,000 on hand either (typical $2,000
deductible plus 20% copays, assuming all services are covered). An
$80,000 tab would not hold up in a free market system without insurance and entitlements. We know from other countries that our costs are grossly inflated. You can't take current prices and assume that would be the going rate in a self-pay market. After all, it doesn't take $3,000 to stitch a toe, nor $80,000 to observe a blockage. Those are external, non-medical price factors that you are paying for (one of them being the insurance industry itself), and they don't need to exist.
Here is one article discussing the cost-effectiveness of flat-rate medical plans (no insurance) and how they are much less costly and tend to be higher quality.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/21/decent-health-care-without-the-insurance/">http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/21/decent-health-care-without-the-insurance[/URL]
A similar model could be established for major medical services too. The reason they probably aren't common is because hospitals and insurance companies (both competing for their services) have the political advantage to fight their permits. There have been private surgery centers popping up all over Alaska, who do accept insurance plans or self-pay, offering services at a fraction of the cost that hospitals do. They are always met with resistance and often lengthy, costly legal battles because price-gouging hospitals don't want to lose that revenue. The surgery centers that have gotten permits get patients from all over Alaska, who travel great distances to save money there (versus using their local hospitals). If the model of bypassing insurance saves money at the clinic level, it makes sense that it would save money on a larger scale also (given adequate population). So I imagine these surgery centers could be even cheaper if they adopted this model and bypassed insurance too. But fighting local hospitals is one thing; trying to fight against the insurance industry and all their powerful lobbyists would be insurmountable. And now with Obamacare, it would just be pointless. Patients who already have insurance have a vested interest in using that insurance.
The point is, one must be careful about touting the benefits of insurance, when the high prices they "protect" against are largely influenced by them in the first place.
deductible plus 20% copays, assuming all services are covered). An
$80,000 tab would not hold up in a free market system without insurance and entitlements. We know from other countries that our costs are grossly inflated. You can't take current prices and assume that would be the going rate in a self-pay market. After all, it doesn't take $3,000 to stitch a toe, nor $80,000 to observe a blockage. Those are external, non-medical price factors that you are paying for (one of them being the insurance industry itself), and they don't need to exist.
Here is one article discussing the cost-effectiveness of flat-rate medical plans (no insurance) and how they are much less costly and tend to be higher quality.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/21/decent-health-care-without-the-insurance/">http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/21/decent-health-care-without-the-insurance[/URL]
A similar model could be established for major medical services too. The reason they probably aren't common is because hospitals and insurance companies (both competing for their services) have the political advantage to fight their permits. There have been private surgery centers popping up all over Alaska, who do accept insurance plans or self-pay, offering services at a fraction of the cost that hospitals do. They are always met with resistance and often lengthy, costly legal battles because price-gouging hospitals don't want to lose that revenue. The surgery centers that have gotten permits get patients from all over Alaska, who travel great distances to save money there (versus using their local hospitals). If the model of bypassing insurance saves money at the clinic level, it makes sense that it would save money on a larger scale also (given adequate population). So I imagine these surgery centers could be even cheaper if they adopted this model and bypassed insurance too. But fighting local hospitals is one thing; trying to fight against the insurance industry and all their powerful lobbyists would be insurmountable. And now with Obamacare, it would just be pointless. Patients who already have insurance have a vested interest in using that insurance.
The point is, one must be careful about touting the benefits of insurance, when the high prices they "protect" against are largely influenced by them in the first place.
Last edited:
Perhaps this debate can be sparked by some number crunching from the 2011 OCDE report on health care.
Diagram #3 in particular, is really striking:
Diagram #3 in particular, is really striking:
I would gladly pay a "tax" to get socialized health care. I calculated out what I pay out of my check every year in premiums, copays, and coinsurance and it comes out close to 15-20% of my GROSS income. Thats basically a tax as it is.
I definitely didnt have this laying around to pay without insurance!
I definitely didnt have this laying around to pay without insurance!