patrick.net

Ironman says

Strategist says

I seldom care what the total costs of a treatment are. All I care for is how much comes out of my pocket for co-pay.

You and 95%+ of the population...

What you normally hear is: "If my insurance pays for it, do it". The majority could care less about the actual cost.

Exactly. If the insurance companies have to pay more, I don't care, they are crooks anyway.

Strategist says

Exactly. If the insurance companies have to pay more, I don't care, they are crooks anyway.

Yeah, but when your paying 20-100% of whatever the bloated bill is, you should care.

Ironman says

FP says

Require Medicare for all.

Not a solution.

It (or similar) is the only solution.

Just look at Patrick's figure above.

Ironman says

Price transparency and control (Patrick's plan) and a Medicare for all plan is like comparing apples to cinder blocks. Two different animals.

Yes. The first does little to solve the problem, the second goes a long way.

Ironman says

How's that working out for cost controls in the program?

You tell me.

FP says

Just look at Patrick's figure above.

here's an even more amazing image:

Patrick says

Require short clear written presentation of all non-emergency medical costs before treatment.

There is something like 70,000 icd10 codes. Most are non-emergency. That's going to make a short clear presentation pretty tough to do.

Then there is the small problem of needing a diagnoses of what is wrong to know what treatment will be before getting a price for treatment. Then most of the time treatment will be writing a prescription. How much difference is there in the cost of writing prescriptions?

People go to whatever doctor in their plan that they like or their friends recommend. Even if by some miracle people actually looked it at prices if dr x charges 20% less and your insurance doesn't cover dr. x that information is totally useless. Posting prices won't change anything no matter how much the free marketers believe it should be true.

Patrick says

Establish universally fixed costs for emergency treatment by law, because no one has any opportunity to shop in an emergency.

How exactly does one do this in the real world? The costs of a small rural hospital er that transfers a lot of people aren't comparable to the costs of running a major trauma center high level er that takes everyone and has tons of expensive specialized equipment along with lots of very expensive highly trained people . The possible variations are endless.

Patrick says

Require all providers to list all of their prices on a publicly accessible website in a standardized format by billing code, and allow public site scraping so databases can easily be collected.

and so what will that accomplish? The insurers are already know what the doctors they cover charge. The insurers set the payments.

Patrick says

Non-discrimination: all medical prices must be charged the same to everyone, whether insured or not. If a hospital charges one person $50 for a certain injection, it must charge everyone else exactly the same $50.

Won't change the cost of health care a nickle, but should definitely be the law. Overcharging the uninsured is absurd.

As Willie Sutton said (more or less) 'I rob banks because that's where the money is". If you want to make changes in the cost of health care then you need to go where the money is. Over treatment (which would require a huge cultural shift in attitudes about dying), the cost of running the insurance system, the cost of running the billing system, drug costs, and profits. Especially taking profits on every single thing done or used, like compounding interest. Pissing around with inconsequential things like posting prices is just picking up pennies on the floor.

rando says

here's an even more amazing image:

Nothing amazing about it. It's just reflects culture. Other countries don't do extending dying. They make people comfortable and let them die with dignity. I've lived in other counties a long time and talked with people about it a lot. They really are amazed and confused as to why americans would want to get so much invasive medical care when they are obviously very near dying. Many find the thought of dying in a hospital hooked up to machines pretty horrifying. Being at home or if needed hospice is much preferred Public health systems and their doctors very much support this. Doctors are careful to evaluate the costs, both financial and to the patients comfort/dignity , of procedures for the elderly. Many public systems employ their doctors so the inherent conflict of interest of fee for service doesn't exist. Even the systems that do fee for service the doctors are much more conservative about the elderly. and yes sometimes the systems simply deny care that can't be justified price wise. The "death panel" thing. But it is really rare. The patients and families are almost always on board with what the doctors recommend as being beneficial or not.

America's intensive end of life care health care fixation is very expensive. Something like 30% of medicare spending is last year of life. Far too many people demand that doctors everything they can and far to many doctors are willing to go along while billing for it.

So unless @patrick is advocating what the idiots call "death panels" the only way this is going to change is a major change in attitudes about death within american society. Without it the huge end of life costs aren't going down.

bob2356 says

rando says

here's an even more amazing image:

Nothing amazing about it. It's just reflects culture. Other countries don't do extending dying. They make people comfortable and let them die with dignity.

It's the damn lawyers who are to blame. Religion too.

rando says

here's an even more amazing image:

Yes, impressive but a bit misleading because people in their 80' and 90's are only a small fraction of the population.

The total cost is an integral over (per capita cost per age)*(number of people per age).

New subtle but important twist added to OP above:

"No one shall be charged anything at all for medical care unless they have personally signed off on the exact cost beforehand."

Ironman says

That's why it says "per capita".. doesn't matter if it's 12 people or 12 million people.

Actually it does matter. We care about the total cost.

Ironman says

Also, why does it ramp up in the senior years, lets see if you can guess???

(here's a hint: Medicare for all)

1. All the other countries on the list have Medicare for all.
2. The inflection starts above age 50.

Clearly there are other factors that explain the rise.

Just don't pay the bills. If you rent to middle class to poor as a landlord, they ALL have medical collections. Almost every single one.

There's also extraordinary circumstances. I'm not paying my ambulance bill while I was working. Sober, clean drug test. Take it up with my employers and get fucked. Goes to collections so be it. Not spending hours fighting it and dealing with all the fucking idiots. I was on the clock. I'll sue everyone if it goes to collections and they know that. Not taking the time to fight it. Just document and telling everyone to fuck off basically.

https://x.com/LibertyCappy/status/1839013289218712049

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/hurricane-trump-wednesday-october

The Wall Street Journal ran a shocked —shocked!— story yesterday headlined, “Healthcare Premiums Are Soaring Even as Inflation Eases.” How could this happen after Obamacare, the inaptly named “Healthcare Affordability Act?” If I didn’t know better, I’d think whenever government arrives to help, it just makes things worse, like a bumbling relative with a creative idea to save money by re-plumbing the septic tank ourselves.




The Journal’s figures showed that, despite its alleged “easing” of inflation, the average family is now paying roughly $25,500 in annual healthcare premiums. In other words, the average family is buying the healthcare industry a Honda Civic every single year.

Thanks, Obamacare!

... Setting aside other obvious causes, in 2024, half of Americans are prediabetic or diagnosed with Type II diabetes, compared to only 1% before the rise of the medical-industrial complex. Two-thirds of us are obese, and an astonishing 77% of our young people suffer from intractable health conditions precluding military service.

The good news though is that our public school system is focused on correcting the deplorable legacy of hatred toward cross-dressers. So there’s that.

To me, one of the most puzzling and mysterious features of life in 2024 is that fact that you can show your Democrat relatives these kinds of figures, and they will insist that even more government is the only answer.

I often wondered what the cost of my hip replacement surgery was.
I believe that hospitals charge differently for different payers, just like 1. lawyers 2. auto body repair shops.
If they are billing insurance, it is a different price; Medicare is a different price; cash is a different price.
General hospitals are fucked because they have to treat people who have no insurance; how the fuck can they afford this unless they gouge the real paying customers?
My orthopedic hospital doesn't have this problem; it takes only people who have elective surgery or other treatments for joints and spine.
Ask yourself; does the welfare mother who has a kid with a runny nose have an iPhone but no insurance? Does she have a big TV and cable?
Does the illegal have multiple children and a fat wife but won't buy insurance because he has always gotten free treatment when he went to the emergency room?
Health care is NOT a right; you either should pay for it or buy insurance to pay for it.
The government created this mess; it cannot fix it because the socialists think that health care is a right.

Agreed, health care is not a right, because no right requires anyone else to pay for it.

Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom to own a gun is a right. Freedom from mandated medical treatments is a right that should be in the Constitution but isn't, yet.

Food, medical care, housing are not rights. They may be essential for your survival, but it's up to you or your relatives to provide them. And providing them becomes infinitely expensive once the government starts subsidizing them, because the providers will keep raising the price to soak up all the tax dollars spent on them.

I think the growth in either is bad. Yes population grows, but I'd rather have the best of best docs. Quality over quantity. Obviously the administrators are there to sell pharmaceuticals. And bill you more than what is needed. All the equipment is paid for after 10 procedures, yet they keep charging the same rate. Yes the real estate is expensive, but do hospitals even pay property taxes?