patrick.net

Paralithodes says

So... CA apparently does not allow people/small businesses like Patrick's to purchase the type of health insurance plan that he just stated he would like to purchase to meet his particular needs.

No, no, no! No one will sell Patrick a plan that meets his needs at a reasonable price! You assume as a truism that this is due to California's regulatory system but there's no reason to suspect that this is the case.

Paralithodes says

And you see no evidence that allowing Patrick to purchase that plan that he wants, across state lines, would help him resolve the very issue that he complains about in this thread, for his own purposes?

There's no law against Patrick purchasing a plan from another state. Lots of insurance companies sell plans in multiple states. Removing all state-level regulations on health insurance (which is what you are proposing) won't force companies to sell plans anywhere they don't want to.

Paralithodes says

Better that he be priced out of health insurance altogether than to have some type of coverage? (And somehow it is the fault of Republicans that he cannot get the type of plan he wants in CA?). Apparently, ideology does in fact trump evidence.

Ok, tell me which state has these great health insurance packages that they would love to sell Patrick? And which California law is preventing this? You assume that they must exist; I'm afraid this is just not so.

I can name literally dozens of countries where this wouldn't be a problem because he would be covered by a national heath care system of one sort or another (none of them are perfect, but they are better for small businesses).

bdrasin says

No one will sell Patrick a plan that meets his needs at a reasonable price!

And even worse -- they are increasing the premium cost at 78% per year for me lately. They all seem to be doing it in lock-step. And note that insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws:

http://www.examiner.net/news/x1914248650/Health-insurance-companies-exempt-from-anti-trust-laws

So it's legal for them all to sit down together and agree to prevent any compeition.

bdrasin says

Ok, tell me which state has these great health insurance packages that they would love to sell Patrick?

Yes, please tell me about them! The first question from each insurer is inevitably what state I live in. And then they show me only plans in that state. I never once saw any out-of-state plan offered by anyone.

In a way, you can buy insurance from out of state. Big companies like United HalthCare, Aetna, Cigna, Wellpoint, etc. sell their poicies in all 50 states under different affiliates. So saying that allowing interstate purchase of health insurance will bring down costs is simply not true. If I don't liek my Cigna policy in NJ, what shoudl I do? Buy a Cigna policy from California? And that is goign to save me money?

Yes, please tell me about them! The first question from each insurer is inevitably what state I live in. And then they show me only plans in that state. I never once saw any out-of-state plan offered by anyone.

Yes, you never once saw any out-of-state plan offered by anyone because the plan they sell you must comply with the regulations in your state. If you find a plan that is better tailored to your needs, that is offered for sale to residents of another state, you have no choice in the matter, unless you move to that state.

HousingWatcher says

In a way, you can buy insurance from out of state. Big companies like United HalthCare, Aetna, Cigna, Wellpoint, etc. sell their poicies in all 50 states under different affiliates. So saying that allowing interstate purchase of health insurance will bring down costs is simply not true. If I don't liek my Cigna policy in NJ, what shoudl I do? Buy a Cigna policy from California? And that is goign to save me money?

Yes, saying that interstate purchase of health insurance will bring down costs, "in a way" that you describe that it exists now, is not true. What is also not true is that your description is applicable to the actual argument regarding interstate purchase "in a way" or in any way.

To boil it down: the argument is: If State A allows insurance companies to sell to individuals a "basic health insurance plan" with perhaps a "10 % co-pay" or even a 50% co-pay, then why shouldn't individuals in State B, which does not allow companies based in that state to sell those policies, have the option to buy that policy from the company in State A?

What solutions have Republicans offered? Privatizing Medicare?

For one, allowing more competition among the types of plans offered across the country, by allowing individuals or businesses in one state to escape the regulatory capture that exists in another state. Ask yourself WHY these big companies have affiliates in all of the states to sell policies there: it should be obvious that it is because those policies must be tailored to the specific rules and regulations in that state. Ask yourself WHY Cigna needs to have an "affiliate" (assuming you mean subsidiary as opposed to resellers) in NJ at all in order to do business there. Why can't you call a company based in CA and buy a policy from them if it better fits your needs, regardless of what companies based in NJ must sell? Somehow giving YOU the individual choice is bad?

Some folks argue that the free market isn't working at all, but even dismissing the interstate competition argument (i.e., no reason to believe that increased competition or increased allowance of tailoring of plans would help reduce prices for many) is acknowledgement that aspects of the free market are not even allowed to operate in the first place.

Paralithodes says

For one, allowing more competition among the types of plans offered across the country, by allowing individuals or businesses in one state to escape the regulatory capture that exists in another state. Ask yourself WHY these big companies have affiliates in all of the states to sell policies there: it should be obvious that it is because those policies must be tailored to the specific rules and regulations in that state.

They don't need to have an 'affiliate' in each state; most choose to operate this way but it isn't required. For example, Blue Cross of Texas sells health insurance in California (I know this because a company which recruited me here in CA used them for coverage).

It is true that there are some market inefficiencies caused by having state-level regulation of health insurance (just like any other product which is regulated at the state level) but you are being wildly unrealistic in assuming this is more than a minor factor.

Have a look at this infographic:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/PremiumTrends/PremiumTrends.html

Health insurance premiums costs are not that much different from state to state. Even if we assume ALL of the difference in cost is due to regulation that would leave Patrick saving like 1k/year by getting a policy from North Dakota instead of CA (average cost for family of 11.5k vs 12.6k in 2009).

These differences are tiny compared to the savings that other industrialized countries enjoy with their 'socialized' systems:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

I don't have a problem in principle with replacing state-level regulation of health care with a nationwide regulatory system, but
1) Its unrealistic to think that the savings will be enough to deal with the scale of the problem, and
2) It will be a long, long difficult process to get all of the states to agree on such a system. And I think this is the point; the republicans who favor this basically want to do nothing.

The point is we pay too much per service, not that we are forced to buy too many services.

Costs won't be affordable until they change the way people get billed and start seeing actual costs they or insurance pay.

If any of you show up at a hospital, in most cases, you'll get about 10+ bills from different departments inside, different doctors and they'll never give you an estimate prior to care even.

The way medicare pays, it makes costs higher due to subsidy. And it also makes doctors not go into Family practices because very little is paid there.

There are a lot of things that need to be addressed. But government isn't a solution. Competition creates innovation, lower prices, etc...

If you're worried about over-use, just have a 10% co-pay on everything. That small cost will stop most of the frivolous usage.

No it wont, what's 10% of seeing a pecker checker, because you feel peckish? $20, $30 tops? But those that only use it when absolutely necessary, and find something like what Steve Jobs is battling, that 10% could be a lot.

My best friend's wife just under went chemo, the cat scan was ordered with in days after the treatment stopped. Her doctor said that he would have rather her had it several weeks later, as the residual effects were still working when the CS was ordered. He would now like her to have a follow up CS, but the insurance company wont pay for it, and it cost 8K. She now has to wait 3 months, and in which time, the window for options her doctor has now, wont be viable.

We need a health care system in this Country that our taxes pays for, even if it cost us more in the long run. A system that isn't a "Hey you used more than ME!!!!" argument. Sounds like a bunch of greedy two year olds, fighting over icecreme.

Anything that looks like Insurance will STINK like insurance stop kidding our selves.

Either you will be bankrupted and forced to use some kind of socialized insurance, or someone in your family will die without treatment. I feel sorry for your children.

I appreciate the concern however so far my children are quite healthy.

One thing I think you and others are doing is confusing "Health Care" with "Health Insurance". While my children do not have health insurance they do have health care. We have a family doctor (we pay cash and generally get a discount for doing do). We visit him regularly.

Furthermore I do not get where you all think that medical care is so expensive. Sure a heart transplant is expensive. Other things are expensive but many things are not that expensive. We had a broken leg (broken in two place) recently and it was about $800 total out of pocket cash. Sure that bill could have been more expensive but what do you expect?

It seems like many of you are actually complaining about not having free health care.

I think if people got over their fears and pre-occupation with health insurance we'd have much more affordable health care in this country. Its supply and demand after all. Right now the health industry can barely keep up with the demand created by our national hypocondria.

Finally for those of you demanding a link to where you can get under $400 health insurance. I wonder where you are getting our quotes from sometimes. Just google insurance and start getting quotes. Now your lower cost plans will of course have higher deductibles but whats the point. You either pay deductibles or premiums and when you pay premiums your cost is guaranteed , statistically speaking, because the Insurance company is taking the risk.

Also there are a growing number of co-opts like Samaritan which work out really well. For Samaritan you have to be a Christian and you can't smoke but for you pagans out there I am sure there is probably some sort of Pagan co-opt out there where you can do all kinds of stuff.

And even worse -- they are increasing the premium cost at 78% per year for me lately. They all seem to be doing it in lock-step. And note that insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws

Patrick - where are you getting quotes. I find it hard to believe what your saying. Im not saying its untrue but I just checked last week for my own family and did not think rates were so outrageous.

Note - I do not live in CA though so perhaps thats the difference. Everything is outrageous in CA.

Also Patrick - you might want to Check http://www.samaritanministries.org/. I know a number of people using it and it has worked out well. I think it is about $350 per month and there are various caps but it might give you some peace of mind and will take care of some pretty major stuff.

gromitmpl says

Either you will be bankrupted and forced to use some kind of socialized insurance, or someone in your family will die without treatment. I feel sorry for your children.

I appreciate the concern however so far my children are quite healthy.

One thing I think you and others are doing is confusing "Health Care" with "Health Insurance". While my children do not have health insurance they do have health care. We have a family doctor (we pay cash and generally get a discount for doing do). We visit him regularly.

There is a case to be made that normal doctor visits should not be dealt with through insurance (I don't agree, but the idea isn't absurd on its face). You should know however that more than half of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills (first link of google here: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm). In most other industrialized countries that number is zero.

In NY, health insurance can cost as much as $8,400.... a month. The free market at work!

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-31/news/29621719_1_health-plan-association-leslie-moran-health-care

The best way to lower health costs is to:

1. Take profit out of the equation

2. Control salaries for doctors (specialists make substantially more in the US than in other industrialized countries)

3. Control prescription drug costs through importation and negotiaton

4. Fine hospitals that encourage non-critical patients to use the ER. There was an article in the Huffington Post yeasterday about hospitals ADVERTISING their ERs on billboards.

FortWayne says

If any of you show up at a hospital, in most cases, you'll get about 10+ bills from different departments inside, different doctors and they'll never give you an estimate prior to care even.

Yep, this is more or less how it works. Very few medical providers will give quotes on costs for procedures, but in my experience this for out-of-plan providers, and there is no way to compare cost with in-plan providers because the in-plan providers will not give you an estimate.

FortWayne says

The way medicare pays, it makes costs higher due to subsidy.

That is not the way medicare works. Medicare sets their own rates and is often 20-30% cheaper than private care.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/Chapter5.9.1.shtml
Scroll down to the section on "Comparison of Public and Private Payment Rates "

FortWayne says

And it also makes doctors not go into Family practices because very little is paid there.

So, you are saying that this is medicare's fault? There are many factors that are contributing to this problem in US medical care, medicare is not one of them.

FortWayne says

There are a lot of things that need to be addressed. But government isn't a solution. Competition creates innovation, lower prices, etc...

Kind of like how removal of government intervention, and encouraging competition has created innovation and lower prices in industries such as: fire services, police services, roadways, etc.

There are some industries where free market practices work great, and even then you need government regulation to ensure that competition continues and monopolies don't arise.

Other industries don't work well in a free market and if left to the private sector can stifle the greater economy. Could you imagine the effect to commerce if every time you pulled out of your driveway you had to pay a toll, or even a toll to use the sidewalk?

I agree with Patrick's claim that nationalizing health care would be a good thing for small business, and the over all economy.

Tenouncetrout says

Teach someone a proverb, and he'll use it out of context to make an unrelated point.

Tenouncetrout says

We need a health care system in this Country that our taxes pays for, even if it cost us more in the long run. A system that isn't a "Hey you used more than ME!!!!" argument. Sounds like a bunch of greedy two year olds, fighting over icecreme.

Anything that looks like Insurance will STINK like insurance stop kidding our selves.

We need people making comments to have the ability to know whether anyone other than themselves can decode what they are saying. Does the term self involved mean anything to you?

Or maybe it's just the weed.

Does medicare look like insurance? Somehow they handle a huge part of all the really big stuff, you know, those pesky little health issues that come up in old age.

I love how govt. de-regulation created innovation on Wall St. Look at all the wonders that innovatins like derivates, credit default swaps, and mortage backed securities brought. That worked out great. I hope we can replicate that same innovation in healthcare.

HousingWatcher says

I love how govt. de-regulation created innovation on Wall St. Look at all the wonders that innovatins like derivates, credit default swaps, and mortage backed securities brought. That worked out great. I hope we can replicate that same innovation in healthcare.

Yes, health care in this country needs more innovation in how to make it more profitable.

gromitmpl says

Furthermore I do not get where you all think that medical care is so expensive. Sure a heart transplant is expensive. Other things are expensive but many things are not that expensive

The total bill for our last child delivery was over $30K. I'd call that pretty expensive.

I have a geat idea: Let states and Wall St. take out life insurance policies on retired teachers, deny them healthcare so they will die quickly, and then make millions of dollars from the policies.

Oh wait, Rick Perry already thoght of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/rick-perry-texas-life-insurance-scheme_n_935666.html

Medicare expense growth rates vs. private insurance growth rates:

HousingWatcher says

I have a geat idea: Let states and Wall St. take out life insurance policies on retired teachers, deny them healthcare so they will die quickly, and then make millions of dollars from the policies.

Oh wait, Rick Perry already thoght of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/rick-perry-texas-life-insurance-scheme_n_935666.html

Come on let's be fair, they never said that they would deny health care. They just stood to profit 100's of millions on the death of retired teachers, and the quicker they died the better for their bank account.

Never be worth more dead than alive.

HousingWatcher says

Medicare expense growth rates vs. private insurance growth rates:

I would be interesting to see the chart 2000-2010.

HousingWatcher says

Oh wait, Rick Perry already thoght of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/rick-perry-texas-life-insurance-scheme_n_935666.html

Oh, yeah and what did the teachers get out of the deal...

50-100 bucks up front and that warm feeling inside knowing that the state and rich investors need you to die ASAP to get a return on their investment.

leoj707 says

Come on let's be fair, they never said that they would deny health care. They just stood to profit 100's of millions on the death of retired teachers, and the quicker they died the better for their bank account.

I would agree that there must be a little more to this story, not to be in any way defending it, or Perry.

Buying insurance on a pool of old people shouldn't be profitable. That's what actuaries are for, to make sure it's slightly profitable to the insurance companies. Unless they knew for some reason that teachers in retirement have especially lower life expectancy.

As for the idea that they planned on denying health coverage, that's pretty hard to believe. Even if Perry were a total dirt bag, he would have to have the political savvy to know how that could hurt him. Not to mention the fact that it would be a huge crime.

IT was a stupid idea though. Maybe secretly they figured that buying life insurance on old people for other's benefit would cause the insured to die of paranoia.

leoj707 says

Yep, this is more or less how it works. Very few medical providers will give quotes on costs for procedures, but in my experience this for out-of-plan providers, and there is no way to compare cost with in-plan providers because the in-plan providers will not give you an estimate.

This really should be addressed. I do think this is a big contributor to the problem. People don't know what they are paying or will pay.

I once showed up to a doctor, it took almost an hour to get an estimate out of those people.

leoj707 says

That is not the way medicare works. Medicare sets their own rates and is often 20-30% cheaper than private care.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/Chapter5.9.1.shtml
Scroll down to the section on "Comparison of Public and Private Payment Rates "

I know they do. But often it costs more than in private sector because of the subsidy. It costs less to the patient because their bill is less, cumulatively it adds to a bigger number.

leoj707 says

So, you are saying that this is medicare's fault? There are many factors that are contributing to this problem in US medical care, medicare is not one of them.

It's how government pays for medical care. It directs how medical field goes. Look if they'll start paying subsidies for you to make IBM computers, all computer tech field will go in that direction for "free" uncle Sams sugar. Thats how our medicine works.

leoj707 says

Kind of like how removal of government intervention, and encouraging competition has created innovation and lower prices in industries such as: fire services, police services, roadways, etc.

Fire services and police services are state, not federal. Freeways which are federally sponsored is a totally different topic, taxpayers paid for commerce when private sector could not do the job yet.

Problems in medical industry need to be addressed though, and not by simple tax more and spend more. That's just wasteful.

bdrasin says

It is true that there are some market inefficiencies caused by having state-level regulation of health insurance (just like any other product which is regulated at the state level) but you are being wildly unrealistic in assuming this is more than a minor factor.

You are being wildly presumptuous in assuming that I believe it is a major factor vs. a minor factor. But I am happy that you do acknowledge it as a factor.

bdrasin says

I don't have a problem in principle with replacing state-level regulation of health care with a nationwide regulatory system, but
1) Its unrealistic to think that the savings will be enough to deal with the scale of the problem, and
2) It will be a long, long difficult process to get all of the states to agree on such a system. And I think this is the point; the republicans who favor this basically want to do nothing.

This is not about replacing a state system with a national system, but even using that assumption: you don't have a problem with it in theory, but you do in practice, because:
1) Even though there might be some savings involved, it is not enough for your liking, and
2) You think it would take too long because of the difficulty getting all the states to agree, although this is completely irrelevant to allowing individuals to purchase plans from wherever they want?

In other words, you are for only major, revolutionary changes, not minor changes even if you agree they may have minor positive impacts. And since Republicans are not for the revolutionary change you want, then their proposal for a minor change - that you acknowledge might be helpful - counts as not wanting to do anything.

Another example of ideology first.

marcus says

Even if Perry were a total dirt bag, he would have to have the political savvy to know how that could hurt him.

Maybe... but he should have had the savvy to know that betting on old people dieing would not looks so good politically.

marcus says

Buying insurance on a pool of old people shouldn't be profitable. That's what actuaries are for, to make sure it's slightly profitable to the insurance companies. Unless they knew for some reason that teachers in retirement have especially lower life expectancy.

Yeah, that was very strange to me. The only way to profit through a life insurance scheme is to know something that the actuaries don't.

Paralithodes says

In other words, you are for only major, revolutionary changes, not minor changes even if you agree they may have minor positive impacts. And since Republicans are not for the revolutionary change you want, then their proposal for a minor change - that you acknowledge might be helpful - counts as not wanting to do anything.

Not really--there are a lot of things that might be helpful. This idea also might be detrimental by segmenting the population and drastically raising rates on older folks, allowing private insurance to cover only the "healthy" folks and pushing the rest onto Medicare.

How about we talk instead about ideas that have already been proven successful in other countries? You know, where healthcare costs are half of what they are here.

leoj707 says

Maybe... but he should have had the savvy to know that betting on old people dieing would not looks so good politically.

My point exactly. That's why I think there is something missing here, in spite of the fact that I don't like Perry at all. Then again, who knows ?

FortWayne says

I once showed up to a doctor, it took almost an hour to get an estimate out of those people.

Wow, that was quick, and was that before getting care? Usually you don't know the cost until you get the bill weeks later.

FortWayne says

But often it costs more than in private sector because of the subsidy. It costs less to the patient because their bill is less, cumulatively it adds to a bigger number.

Yes, it costs less for the patient:
"...on average, Medicare’s payments were about 9 percent below the costs of serving Medicare patients, whereas pri­vate payments were about 30 percent above costs."

But, also the total cost is less for medicare than the private rates:
"Private rates are noticeably higher than Medicare’s rates in areas with less competition among providers... ...the rates paid to physicians by private insurance plans are an average of 30 percent higher than Medicare’s rates in small metro­politan areas and rural areas, 10 percent higher in medium-sized metropolitan areas, and 1 percent higher in large metropolitan areas."

I would be interested to know you source for Medicare costing more than private care.

FortWayne says

Fire services and police services are state, not federal. Freeways which are federally sponsored is a totally different topic, taxpayers paid for commerce when private sector could not do the job yet.

Well, while those are run at the state level there are federal agencies (FBI, etc.) and regulation of those state projects. There is a reason why you can take a fire hose from California, and it plugs right into a fire hydrant in Florida.

Why could medical care not be run the same way?

FortWayne says

Problems in medical industry need to be addressed though, and not by simple tax more and spend more. That's just wasteful.

I agree that we need to cut the waste. That is one of the reasons why I think that universal health care is the way to go. Delivery system aside, we spend over twice as much for health care than other industrialized "modern" nations. For all this extra cash we get worse outcomes than the "cheaper" systems; we have a lower life expectancy and a higher infant mortality to name two undesirable outcomes.

Why, as a nation are we wasting so much money on a health care industry that gives us shitty returns? Why don't we "shop around" and find out how other countries provide better care for half the price?

Paralithodes says

In other words, you are for only major, revolutionary changes, not minor changes even if you agree they may have minor positive impacts. And since Republicans are not for the revolutionary change you want, then their proposal for a minor change - that you acknowledge might be helpful - counts as not wanting to do anything.

Another example of ideology first.

*sigh* Our system is not working; its too expensive for us to afford (and getting worse) and and its not particularly effective. I'd say lets look at countries which have systems which DO work by this measure (cost and effectiveness) and try to copy what they are doing. This isn't ideology, it isn't revolutionary, its common sense. Follow the evidence, I say.

Again I ask you - what country has a health care system closest to what you think we should have? It sounds like you think a completely unregulated market would be best (i.e. let the states conduct a "race to the bottom" in insurance regulation). What country does this, and how is that working for them? If the answer is "none", then what makes you think this is what will work?

It really astonishes me that you would think that looking around the world for what is working IN PRACTICE and using that as evidence is an "ideology first" approach.

gromitmpl says

Patrick - where are you getting quotes. I find it hard to believe what your saying.

My actual Blue Shield rates:

And it's not due to anything medical in particular. They showed me it's the same outrageous rate hikes for everyone in my age group.

Other quotes were from http://www.healthcare.gov/

leoj707 says

Why, as a nation are we wasting so much money on a health care industry that gives us shitty returns? Why don't we "shop around" and find out how other countries provide better care for half the price?

Because of American exceptionalism. Obviously if we pay so much more it HAS to be because we get so much more. (kidding).

leoj707 says

That is one of the reasons why I think that universal health care is the way to go.

Everyone with the slightest intelligence knows this to be true, and also knows that it's inevitable that we will have universal health care. But unfortunately we have this money sucking monstrosity in place and a corrupt government beholding to it.

tatupu70 says

The total bill for our last child delivery was over $30K. I'd call that pretty expensive

My assumption is that the 30k was not for the delivery but was for complications arising from or after the delivery.

Also was that from your OB or from some one else.

I know many many many many people who have more than your average number of children and that 30k is more than any one of them have spent for the delivery of all their children combined.

That number is either not for the delivery or because you stayed at the Beverly Hills Wilshire to deliver the baby.

My actual Blue Shield rates:

That is expensive but of course expensive is relative to what your getting. I assume you have a fairly basic plan though since your rates in 06 were fairly low.

Maybe its because you are in California? I just checked a couple weeks ago for my own family and saw several plans in the $3-$400 range that would be fine. More or less these might be considered catastrophic loss type of insurance but in my experience even high deductible plans have hidden beneifts like negotiated rates which help in cases of even more normal medical care.

If you absolutely need it I'd start with high deductible plans and pay for regular care out of pocket. In my experience Doctors love working with people who actually pay cash and give steep discounts (%30- 50%).

Why should Patrick pay for healthcare out of his own pocket? He should go to the ER and let the govt. pay.

marcus says

Everyone with the slightest intelligence knows this to be true, and also knows that it's inevitable that we will have universal health care. But unfortunately we have this money sucking monstrosity in place and a corrupt government beholding to it.

I would like to think that a universal system is inevitable, but with the way things are going I am not going to hold my breath.

gromitmpl says

My assumption is that the 30k was not for the delivery but was for complications arising from or after the delivery.

Haha... hahaha... maybe there were complications, if so they we very minor. I don't remember the exact number, but for my kids the (cesarean) delivery was almost 30k. Then the immediate complications were about 850k. The cost for the first year of life was close to 1M (this was with only one surgery required). They were however twins that each get there own deductible upon birth.

gromitmpl says

That number is either not for the delivery or because you stayed at the Beverly Hills Wilshire to deliver the baby.

Funny thing is that staying in a luxury hotel and hiring a private nurse is cheaper than a hospital stay, but I don't think insurance covers that.

leoj707 says

Wow, that was quick, and was that before getting care? Usually you don't know the cost until you get the bill weeks later.

I was referred to a specialist (his name is Michael J Hollander, a money grabbing bastard). Came in for an exam and xray. It was almost impossible to get the price out of the office staff, their hourly rates, etc...

Nightmare. And that was not the worst case either. Just going to a hospital, one gets to run into tons of staff that show up for under a minute but bill you for an hour of their time.