patrick.net

tatupu70 says

It was a C-section. No complications. That was the cumulative cost for everything.

Tat - this is why my wife and I are leaving the country soon. We can't afford to have children, as our medical insurance sucks balls, even if there are no complications.

Or rather, we can afford to have a child - if we give up most or all of our savings so far ($15k), which we want to use to start a business and have as a reserve.

leoj707 says

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.

I didn't say soon. For all I know the pendulum swings all the way to fascism, and it takes many decades or even hundreds or thousands of years for us (humans and specifically the U.S.) to get their act together.

Still, it is inevitable.

Moneyworth's Financial Advice #573:

If you desire a child to give your nanny something to do, consider adopting a Bohunk from Tsarist Russia. They are the lightest of the Colored races and can subsist on a diet of hearty potato alcohols. Good in science and appreciates stern and unyeilding fathers.

Your wife may want an Oriental doll from Peking China. While they are the most industrious of the Colored races, it can be difficult acquiring fish and rice while your family is traveling, and you do not want your almond eyed baby to starve. Plus what ultimate purpose does a female serve?

Adopting is much preferred to losing your trophy wife's vagina to the devastation of childbirth. Good luck!

FortWayne says

Just look at Obamacare. Insurance rates skyrocketed with it.

Liar. Anything that would increase rates hasn't gone into effect yet.

Insurance rate went up because the economy sucks. This is how insurance works -- when times are good, the insurance company can invest the premiums and get good returns. When the economy tanks, they don't get sufficient returns, and actuarial math says they need higher premiums. Obamacare hasn't caused rates to go up yet, regardless of whether it ultimately might do so (a dubious claim based on current projections).

FortWayne says

You'd be surprise how much stupidity you'll run into. People stop by for headaches, sneezing, aches, etc... And most get sent back often with prescription for tylenol at most.

Prove that it's the case. There are many many many studies done on ER usage. Find me one that says a substantial number of people go to ERs for headaches or the common cold and are sent back with tylenol. This should be easy to prove, right?

Reality says

The reporting of infant mortality (government statstics issue; in Cuba, a person is not officially born until he/she is 10 months old, as a way of keeping infant mortality statistics down)

This should be easy to prove right?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cuba+birth+statistics+%2210+months%22

Nothing. Hmm. Am I doing a bad search? What's your source? This should be easy to find, right?

Reality says

Which is why the decision should be left to the individual instead in the hands of monopolistic bureaucrats. Do you honestly think a monopolistic bureaucrat would refrain from spending $1M of your money to get a 20% chance of extending the life of his mother or his son for 1 day at your expense?

Why can't it be? If it's part of basic coverage and the government plan covers it, then it covers it. If not, the individual has to pay for it (as you suggest). How is the government making a death decision (a la "death panels")? I'm not sure what you're asking -- either the care fits within plan standards or it doesn't.

The government is guaranteeing a basic standard of healthcare for a particular price. If you want something outside of that standard, you pay, just like you are suggesting. There is no "death panel" decision involved. Only ideologues suggest this crap as if it's an analytical complication.

Reality says

The life expectancy issue is a red herring. That of the US is weighed down by recent immigrants and poor families that have theoretical access to free health-care but do not or can not actually use them, especially in pre-natal care. That leads to higher infant mortality among particular groups. Infant mortality is the biggest factor in "average life expectation," not longevity of the elderly per se.

If what you're saying is true, then California should have the highest infant mortality rate because it has the highest number of immigrants, right? New York should be second highest? Maybe Florida should be third highest?

FAIL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#United_States

When we're saying "recent immigrants," we're talking about Mexicans right? That means Latinos should have a higher infant mortality than whites according to your premise:

FAIL, again: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=48&rgn=1&cat=2

In addition, you're suggesting that poor people willfully don't get prenatal care even though it's available to them and that's what raises infant mortality. If so, that means that, poor blacks who do get prenatal care in the first trimester should have the same infant mortality rate as whites who get prenatal care in the first trimester right?

FAIL, striiiike 3, you're out: http://www.arc.org/racewire/030210z_kashef.html

But thanks for playing our game and giving us talking points that aren't true.

@corntrollo

>very sane plan involves rationing. There are cost-benefit analyses that must be made in all plans. It is not cost effective to spend $1M to give a 20% chance of extending someone's life 1 day.

Agreed. By nature any service or product that is limited is "rationed" in some way. That's what most Americans don't get.

tatupu70 says

It was a C-section. No complications. That was the cumulative cost for everything.

Just the local hospital with nothing special--no extra stay or special room or anything

Ok wait a second though. Your saying this was a scheduled C-section?

Also when you say the "cost" was 30k are you actually out of pocket for or on the line for 30k or is your insurance company paying?

Hospitals play games with insurance companies so while they may put 30k down as they bill they have a negotiated rate with the Insurance company - or will so what we should be talking about is not the numbers on some piece of BS paper but what your insurance company actually paid.

In anycase 30k sounds about double what the normal putative cost of a c-section is, at least in these parts, and ultimately I think most insurance companies pay far less than that.

bdrasin says

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).

Odd... When I visited the BCBS Texas site this morning to get a quote, it kept telling me to enter a valid zip code for Texas! Perhaps CA allows some type of exception for corporate purchases vs. individual purchases? If so, why the rule, and why the exception?

bdrasin says

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.

I never once said anything about a "completely unregulated market." Nor did I say anything about looking or not looking around the world. I addressed one small component of something that could be done right now, even if it had just a minor positive effect. However, the fact that you must attribute multiple arguments to me that I did not make at all, is unfortunately not astonishing on this site.

Meanwhile, isn't CA itself similar in population and economy size (or bigger) to many of the countries you would compare for health care? What is preventing the implementation of a state wide program similar to one of the western european countries? You have the perfect place for a proof of concept for the US.

gromitmpl says

Also when you say the "cost" was 30k are you actually out of pocket for or on the line for 30k or is your insurance company paying?

I had decent insurance, thank goodness.

gromitmpl says

In anycase 30k sounds about double what the normal putative cost of a c-section is, at least in these parts, and ultimately I think most insurance companies pay far less than that.

So, $15K to have a baby seems OK to you then?

Paralithodes says

bdrasin says

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).

Odd... When I visited the BCBS Texas site this morning to get a quote, it kept telling me to enter a valid zip code for Texas! Perhaps CA allows some type of exception for corporate purchases vs. individual purchases? If so, why the rule, and why the exception?

Let me repeat this as clearly as possible: there is not, and never has been, any rule forbidding you, me, Patrick, or anyone from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Any policy sold in California has to conform to California law of course, but that is it.

There really are only so many ways to do this:

1. Regulation at state level based on where you do business (what we have now)
2. No regulation (you say you don't what this, neither do I)
3. Regulation at state level, based on where your headquarters is (will cause a race to the bottom and we'll end up with effectively no regulation)
4. National regulation

Thats really it. This is why I keep rephrasing the proposition as "get rid of state-level regulation", because that is in fact what you are proposing (perhaps without knowing it).

If BCBSTX doesn't want to sell an individual policy outside of Texas you'd have to ask them why they choose not to, I have no idea. They obviously provide coverage in lots of states; go to http://bcbstx.com//onlinedirectory/index.htm and select "BlueChoice PPO Plan" then search by provider type. You will see they have doctors all over the country.

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, isn't CA itself similar in population and economy size (or bigger) to many of the countries you would compare for health care? What is preventing the implementation of a state wide program similar to one of the western european countries? You have the perfect place for a proof of concept for the US.

Not out of the question at all. Massachusetts has [R|Ob]omneycare which from what I understand is working pretty well. There was a statewide health care system on the California ballot in 2004 (I don't remember the details) which didn't go through. I'd wager that if the Republicans or the courts succeed in overturning PPACA that its somewhere between likely and certain that we'll see CA enact some sort of statewide system.

OK I do see a legitimate problem with "free" medical care.

Namely I was in a meeting about Estate Planning. And one thing the lawyer for the seminar kept going on about, was the many ways to avoid or minimize cost recovery for end of life care so the children can inherit. You know preserve the house so they get the Prop 13 rights in perpetuity, all kinds of things. It sort of made me ill after a while. I mean, on Medi-Cal the person might have racked up a SIZEABLE bill for all that care, and then the goal seems to be stiff the system. My feelings on this are mixed, but still it seems to me if you had to sell off your house to afford comfortable nursing home care well that's sort of the deal right? That's why so many people refer to their house as a retirement savings plan? I'm probably in the minority, who would prefer to let a lot of the loopholes be closed.

bdrasin says

Let me repeat this as clearly as possible: there is not, and never has been, any rule forbidding you, me, Patrick, or anyone from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Any policy sold in California has to conform to California law of course, but that is it.

You deny and affirm the existence of the argument in the very same response. Let me repeat this as clearly as possible: The argument of those for allowing the competition is not, and has never been, purchasing a health insurance policy from a company that simply happens to operate in more than one state. The argument is one of allowing individual choice nationwide. The argument hinges precisely on your last point (the policy must conform to the law of that state - removing individual choice).

Agree or disagree with the conclusions, the following article describes fairly well the position of those making the argument:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360923109310680.html

bdrasin says

Regulation at state level, based on where your headquarters is (will cause a race to the bottom and we'll end up with effectively no regulation)

Your "race to the bottom" argument assumes that either (a) no providers in certain states will offer anything other than the most very basic plan, or (b) no individual will purchase anything but the most basic plan.

Both are extremely unlikely, since (a) companies will offer different levels of plans, just as many do now, and (b) there will be plenty of people who will purchase plans of all sorts and sizes, depending on their individual needs, just as they do now. The difference, of course, is that now instead of just being allowed to purchase a plan allowed in CA, you could purchase one in CA or in OR, depending on which better suited your own needs. What exactly would be objectionable about that?

Your argument that this would result in "no regulation" might be valid if all other products and services that were bought and sold more easily across state lines had "no regulation" on them by the states. But that's not true either, and your attempt to re-define the argument with this assumption is invalid.

bdrasin says

Thats really it. This is why I keep rephrasing the proposition as "get rid of state-level regulation", because that is in fact what you are proposing (perhaps without knowing it).

Again, it is not. Clearly, states would have to re-work some of their legislation to ensure they're not at extreme competitive disadvantages, but as above, there is zero reason to believe that this would result in zero state regulation.

bdrasin says

If BCBSTX doesn't want to sell an individual policy outside of Texas you'd have to ask them why they choose not to, I have no idea.

I think you do know why. You've essentially acknowledged it already. This is what we have been discussing. And if Patrick, as a small business owner, found a plan that better suited his needs through BCBSTX, or some other company in TX, your position would object to him being allowed to purchase that plan, thereby forcing him to pay more money for a plan that may be more than he needs - or to forego insurance altogether.

bdrasin says

They obviously provide coverage in lots of states; go to http://bcbstx.com//onlinedirectory/index.htm and select "BlueChoice PPO Plan" then search by provider type. You will see they have doctors all over the country.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we are discussing.

Vicente says

Namely I was in a meeting about Estate Planning. And one thing the lawyer for the seminar kept going on about, was the many ways to avoid or minimize cost recovery for end of life care so the children can inherit.

There's a law firm that used to advertise this all the time on the Howie Carr show, a regional talk program in Mass.

Their schtick was that they would help you give your assets to your kids, and then have you go on every government program possible was, as their catchprase said, "Moral, Legal, and Ethical." and something like:
"Shouldn't you be able to pass along a lifetime of savings?"

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, you want to leave something to your kids, and the other not to pay something is kind of self-serving.

Maybe we can exempt one piece of property but all other assets must be sold to pay for the care?

I think Florida does something like this with the Florida Homestead Exemption, you can't lose your house for any kind of debt.

On the other hand, there's a reason why a lot of shady characters buy Florida properties... I think of McNamara, a shady car dealer from LI in the 80s who defrauded GM and the IRS. He had a big palace in Florida in his wife's name, immune from seizure.

Paralithodes says

bdrasin says

Regulation at state level, based on where your headquarters is (will cause a race to the bottom and we'll end up with effectively no regulation)

Your "race to the bottom" argument assumes that either (a) no providers in certain states will offer anything other than the most very basic plan, or (b) no individual will purchase anything but the most basic plan.

No, no, its a regulatory race to the bottom. In other words, the state which provides the regulation a health insurance co's like the best (i.e. next to none) gets their headquarters. We should never allow companies to play the states against each other in this way.

Paralithodes says

bdrasin says

If BCBSTX doesn't want to sell an individual policy outside of Texas you'd have to ask them why they choose not to, I have no idea.

I think you do know why. You've essentially acknowledged it already. This is what we have been discussing. And if Patrick, as a small business owner, found a plan that better suited his needs through BCBSTX, or some other company in TX, your position would object to him being allowed to purchase that plan, thereby forcing him to pay more money for a plan that may be more than he needs - or to forego insurance altogether.

No, I just think that if the company in OR/TX or wherever wants to sell him a plan they have to follow the law in the state they are selling in. If we want to have one national standard instead of a bunch of state standards that's fine with me in principle but probably unworkable in practice.

Paralithodes says

bdrasin says

Thats really it. This is why I keep rephrasing the proposition as "get rid of state-level regulation", because that is in fact what you are proposing (perhaps without knowing it).

Again, it is not. Clearly, states would have to re-work some of their legislation to ensure they're not at extreme competitive disadvantages, but as above, there is zero reason to believe that this would result in zero state regulation.

If you mean CA could impose some additional restrictions on top of what this company in OR did, then that's not any different than what we have today. Now the company would have to comply with CA laws; if they had to comply with OR + CA then how is this better? If they only had to comply with OR then that's just no good. Oregon lawmakers should not be responsible for protecting consumers in California! The natural thing to expect is that some small conservative state would give the health insurance industry the laws it wants, and viola, tehy would get the company's headquarters (even if it was only a mailbox)

It seems clear to me that this isn't a real proposal its a talking point to distract from real health care reform. I'm done with this thread, you can have the last word if you want it.

thunderlips11 says

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, you want to leave something to your kids, and the other not to pay something is kind of self-serving.

Yes! You said it better than I did.

The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. My goal as executor of my parent's estate and Golden Years is to spend everything they have to make them comfortable for that period. I just don't get the desire of some people to inherit money, they worked for that it should be their benefit. Shoot I'd have a yard sale of the heirlooms except for maybe the coin collection if it'd help pay final bills. I find it sad so many get obsessed over all the money and things really, I dread the possibility of sibling issues over it.

The way to prevent this is to control profits in the senior care sector and also mandate some sort of elderly care set-aside, like Medicare, for all workers.

I don't begrudge the 3% I've been paying for the past 25 years since this is how it should be.

If all taxes come out of rents then we should not fear the higher taxation that this hits us with.

When we get down to it, health care should be a central focus of our economy and too important to leave to the free market fairy.

tatupu70 says

So, $15K to have a baby seems OK to you then?

I am just saying your numbers are wrong. You admitted your insurance pays. That 30k number is a fiction. So is the 15k unless your talking about some sort of complication.

As for babies - let me break it to you. Women have been giving birth for thousands of years. Giving birth is not a sickness it is a natural process. Many babies have been born at virtually no cost in the front and back seats of cars on the way to the hospital.

So what is the point you say? If you want to spend 15k to have a baby be my guest. If you want to spend 1k then I know a good midwife who's delivered more babies than most OB's. There is a whole other world out there Tatapu where people are having babies and enjoying life and they are not spending 15k a pop.

gromitmpl says

I am just saying your numbers are wrong. You admitted your insurance pays. That 30k number is a fiction. So is the 15k unless your talking about some sort of complication.

Admit? I wasn't hiding anything. And my numbers weren't wrong. You can claim that hospitals or doctors jack up their costs on the bill knowing that insurance companies won't pay it. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. And there is certainly no evidence that the costs are jacked up by 100%.
$30K is what the hospital/Drs/labs charged. That is a fact.

gromitmpl says

There is a whole other world out there Tatapu where people are having babies and enjoying life and they are not spending 15k a pop.

Of course. It's called Canada, Europe, Australia, etc. The rest of the civilized world really.

The $15k out of pocket isn't crazy for a C-section, especially if you have individual health insurance or work for a small company that can only afford shitty plans.

gromitmpl says

As for babies - let me break it to you. Women have been giving birth for thousands of years. Giving birth is not a sickness it is a natural process. Many babies have been born at virtually no cost in the front and back seats of cars on the way to the hospital.

Which countries on this map represent places where hospital births are the norm, and which are where hospital births are less frequent?

Until the last century, there were more a lot more old men than old women.

Edit: WHO map added.

Vicente says

Shoot I'd have a yard sale of the heirlooms except for maybe the coin collection if it'd help pay final bills. I find it sad so many get obsessed over all the money and things really, I dread the possibility of sibling issues over it.

Yeah, this happened in my family. It sucked, even though none of the other siblings cared or needed what little money there was, or about the last minute changes to the will and executor, which nobody was told about, including the person who was replaced (the elder brother).

What pissed everyone off was my Uncle's bizarre behavior regarding the sentimental stuff: The Photo Albums, Keepsakes, Old Toys, etc. He never told anybody what happened to them, whether they were kept, sold, or trashed. He constantly evaded giving an answer about them.

Even though all the siblings offered to pay or share the cost of the funerals, and shared the care of my grandmother in the few months between her death, he had a sudden snit seemingly out of the blue, wrote all of his siblings a nasty-gram about them taking advantage of him, and hasn't spoken to anybody in the 15 years since.

I guess years of resentment just boiled over.

thunderlips11 says

Which countries on this map represent places where hospital births are the norm, and which are where hospital births are less frequent?

Until the last century, there were more a lot more old men than old women.

Yep, it is a natural process that has a relatively high mortality rate when it happens without modern medical care.

Nice map, it is interesting to see what other countries are out "peers" when it comes to maternal mortality.

leoj707 says

Nice map, it is interesting to see what other countries are out "peers" when it comes to maternal mortality.

But, but, but other countries lie about their health care results, only America tells the truth. America has the best health care in the world, those socialist countries in the blue can't have better results, Fox says so.