Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[Hicks]

I'm not going to pretend to know the actual costs involved but when I take my daughter in for a procedure that literally takes 10 minutes in the OR and it costs $6000 something is very, very wrong. 

What can we do to get these costs under control?

Don't take her to the emergency room???   I mean, your complaint is the equivalent of bitching about having to buy a lamborghini in order to drive to the mall...  (Yes that was the analogy I told my wife when we took our kid to the ER for a fever...)

If it was truly an emergency, the $6000 would be the least of your worries... 

Strike all that, I read "OR" as "ER"...  And yeah, $6000???  Sounds pretty cheap to train doctors and nurses that are attempting to better (or SAVE) your kid's life through an invasive surgical procedure...  But if you want to pay less for surgery, I have a butcher knife soaking in rubbing alcohol out in the garage...  I'll only charge you half that amount...

Terry

I asked the nurse and she said they can perform 80 such procedures in a single day, so now I'm on the hook for entire cost of training the doctor and nurses?

What about the other 79 people that had it done THAT SAME DAY? 

Do the math, that's $480,000 for a single day's work for the staff.   

And yes I realize there was some equipment and anesthetic involved, but still, it's fucking ridiculous. 

[twatts]

I'm not going to pretend to know the actual costs involved but when I take my daughter in for a procedure that literally takes 10 minutes in the OR and it costs $6000 something is very, very wrong. 

What can we do to get these costs under control?

Don't take her to the emergency room???   I mean, your complaint is the equivalent of bitching about having to buy a lamborghini in order to drive to the mall...  (Yes that was the analogy I told my wife when we took our kid to the ER for a fever...)

If it was truly an emergency, the $6000 would be the least of your worries... 

Strike all that, I read "OR" as "ER"...  And yeah, $6000???  Sounds pretty cheap to train doctors and nurses that are attempting to better (or SAVE) your kid's life through an invasive surgical procedure...  But if you want to pay less for surgery, I have a butcher knife soaking in rubbing alcohol out in the garage...  I'll only charge you half that amount...

Terry

I asked the nurse and she said they can perform 80 such procedures in a single day, so now I'm on the hook for entire cost of training the doctor and nurses?

What about the other 79 people that had it done THAT SAME DAY? 

Do the math, that's $480,000 for a single day's work for the staff.   

And yes I realize there was some equipment and anesthetic involved, but still, it's fucking ridiculous.

I'm not sure what kind of procedure your child had, but if it betters his/her life, wasn't it worth $6000???  And if not, why did you even do it???

Terry

[Hicks]

I'm not going to pretend to know the actual costs involved but when I take my daughter in for a procedure that literally takes 10 minutes in the OR and it costs $6000 something is very, very wrong. 

What can we do to get these costs under control?

Don't take her to the emergency room???   I mean, your complaint is the equivalent of bitching about having to buy a lamborghini in order to drive to the mall...  (Yes that was the analogy I told my wife when we took our kid to the ER for a fever...)

If it was truly an emergency, the $6000 would be the least of your worries... 

Strike all that, I read "OR" as "ER"...  And yeah, $6000???  Sounds pretty cheap to train doctors and nurses that are attempting to better (or SAVE) your kid's life through an invasive surgical procedure...  But if you want to pay less for surgery, I have a butcher knife soaking in rubbing alcohol out in the garage...  I'll only charge you half that amount...

Terry

I asked the nurse and she said they can perform 80 such procedures in a single day, so now I'm on the hook for entire cost of training the doctor and nurses?

What about the other 79 people that had it done THAT SAME DAY? 

Do the math, that's $480,000 for a single day's work for the staff.   

And yes I realize there was some equipment and anesthetic involved, but still, it's fucking ridiculous.

I'm not sure what kind of procedure your child had, but if it betters his/her life, wasn't it worth $6000???  And if not, why did you even do it???

Terry

You are completely missing my point.

If some motherfucker took my daughter hostage and I had to shell out $6000 as ransom to get her back it would technically be "worth it".

That doesn't make it right.

[mbw]

I'm not going to pretend to know the actual costs involved but when I take my daughter in for a procedure that literally takes 10 minutes in the OR and it costs $6000 something is very, very wrong. 

What can we do to get these costs under control?

Don't take her to the emergency room???   I mean, your complaint is the equivalent of bitching about having to buy a lamborghini in order to drive to the mall...  (Yes that was the analogy I told my wife when we took our kid to the ER for a fever...)

If it was truly an emergency, the $6000 would be the least of your worries... 

Strike all that, I read "OR" as "ER"...  And yeah, $6000???  Sounds pretty cheap to train doctors and nurses that are attempting to better (or SAVE) your kid's life through an invasive surgical procedure...  But if you want to pay less for surgery, I have a butcher knife soaking in rubbing alcohol out in the garage...  I'll only charge you half that amount...

Terry

I asked the nurse and she said they can perform 80 such procedures in a single day, so now I'm on the hook for entire cost of training the doctor and nurses?

What about the other 79 people that had it done THAT SAME DAY? 

Do the math, that's $480,000 for a single day's work for the staff.   

And yes I realize there was some equipment and anesthetic involved, but still, it's fucking ridiculous.

I'm not sure what kind of procedure your child had, but if it betters his/her life, wasn't it worth $6000???  And if not, why did you even do it???

Terry

yeah hicks, if you question the cost you dont love your daughter!
now shut up and do as your told!   :wink:

[mbw]

ok, just gloss over congressional testimony of a phsycian and former humana employee with a chart.

The point is that one person's experience is not indicative of the entire industry. I'm not disputing that there are some bad people in the industry following immoral business practices.

this is all moot anyway, because as you famously once declared:

no one profits from other people's misery.

[gah]

ok, just gloss over congressional testimony of a phsycian and former humana employee with a chart.

The point is that one person's experience is not indicative of the entire industry. I'm not disputing that there are some bad people in the industry following immoral business practices.

this is all moot anyway, because as you famously once declared:

no one profits from other people's misery.

That's not true?  :|

::cancels order of dozen chinese slave labor kids::

::kicks can down road, thinking the 13th one was free too  :x ::

[runawayjimbo]

ok, just gloss over congressional testimony of a phsycian and former humana employee with a chart.

The point is that one person's experience is not indicative of the entire industry. I'm not disputing that there are some bad people in the industry following immoral business practices.

this is all moot anyway, because as you famously once declared:

no one profits from other people's misery.

If you want to take my comments out of context go for it. I don't think that makes your case any stronger but hey, have at it. But it doesn't even make sense in this argument. People die in car accidents too; do the auto companies profit from people's misery? Alcohol is pretty goddamned dangerous, should we ask the gov't to step in and save us? The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people have unquestionably benefited from evil, greedy health insurers than have been harmed by them.

[gah]

ok, just gloss over congressional testimony of a phsycian and former humana employee with a chart.

The point is that one person's experience is not indicative of the entire industry. I'm not disputing that there are some bad people in the industry following immoral business practices.

this is all moot anyway, because as you famously once declared:

no one profits from other people's misery.

If you want to take my comments out of context go for it. I don't think that makes your case any stronger but hey, have at it. But it doesn't even make sense in this argument. People die in car accidents too; do the auto companies profit from people's misery? Alcohol is pretty goddamned dangerous, should we ask the gov't to step in and save us? The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people have unquestionably benefited from evil, greedy health insurers than have been harmed by them.

It's true. I include the health insurance companies in my prayers every night. If it wasn't for them, I don't know where I'd be. Probably a lot better off. God bless health insurance companies.

[mbw]

ok, just gloss over congressional testimony of a phsycian and former humana employee with a chart.

The point is that one person's experience is not indicative of the entire industry. I'm not disputing that there are some bad people in the industry following immoral business practices.

this is all moot anyway, because as you famously once declared:

no one profits from other people's misery.

If you want to take my comments out of context go for it. I don't think that makes your case any stronger but hey, have at it. But it doesn't even make sense in this argument.

People die in car accidents too; do the auto companies profit from people's misery?

Alcohol is pretty goddamned dangerous, should we ask the gov't to step in and save us? The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people have unquestionably benefited from evil, greedy health insurers than have been harmed by them.

1. how is it out of context?
2. thats a shit analogy
3. alcohol is heavily regulated by the gov't

[aphineday]

I'm hopping back in here with a couple of points.
1.) MBW never did proclaim his statement to be so profound as to end a thread, but I did; It's that simple to me.
2.) Hicks is spot on. I understand that it is a money game, and that leads me to point 3.
3.) All of this talk about regarding healthcare denying claims as a "business protecting itself from a loss" is exactly the mindset I'm opposed to. Before you call me out (medical procedures aren't free, training doctors isn't free etc..), I get it. I forgot that Docs don't pay anything out of their pockets or take loans. IF we are going to pay for their training, then that's a completely different ballgame. I'm a pilot, and I owe a lot of money in loans I took to make that a reality. Nobody bitches about how much it costs to train pilots, and that's why airfares are so high etc..
$6,000 for Hicks to take his child to the ER is absurd, and should not be how it's handled period. The argument of "isn't $6000 worth bettering your kid's life" is insane. He did it to help his child, but (as he said, but I just want to reiterate) OF COURSE IT'S "WORTH IT", but it's also inherently fucking wrong.

[sunrisevt]

I'm just gonna chime in here and agree that corporate profit motives should be divorced from health care. There's too much perverse incentive in making money off of people being hurt and sick.

Do you think there wouldn't be as many perverse incentives by interjecting the gov't into personal healthcare decisions? Look at the contraception issue. I just can't believe that both sides wouldn't continue to play political games with people's lives. And it's easy for you to say when the Ds control the policies, but what happens if there's a GOP administration in charge of your healthcare. I think I asked you this before, but would you really be comfortable with Pres. Rick Santorum setting the agenda of the single payer healthcare system? Cause that would scare the fuck out of me. We could just pray the sickness away.

First, Santorum's not a faith healer or Christian Scientist; he's a cafeteria Catholic. He's not even been consistent in his adult life on his application of Catholic principles. But no, that's not the point...

A sane national health plan would definitely cover contraception and reproductive health care broadly and at low cost to consumers, because it's a guaranteed cost-cutting measure. Unplanned pregnancies are much, much more costly to society than lots of rubbers, pills, IUDs, Plan Bs, etc.

I agree with you that bringing the gov't futher into health care is scary. But the corporate state has proved itself a miserably poor steward of the common good--in fact is was always insane to expect legal entities whose only raison d'etre is profit for shareholders to voluntarily keep the public good in mind in their pursuit of profit. I'm willing to consider models based on those of the UK & Western Europe as viable, sane alternatives.

And no, I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm saying they need to get the fuck out of the businesses of providing health care, running prisons, providing military services, etc. Certain vital social functions should necessarily be the sole purview of the government, and I think health care has moved into that category over the last century.

[twatts]

$6,000 for Hicks to take his child to the ER is absurd, and should not be how it's handled period. The argument of "isn't $6000 worth bettering your kid's life" is insane. He did it to help his child, but (as he said, but I just want to reiterate) OF COURSE IT'S "WORTH IT", but it's also inherently fucking wrong.

1) He said OR, not ER.  That was my mistake. 
2) "Wrong" is relative.  He never stated what the procedure was, so we make a lot of assumptions.  If he said he paid a $6000 deductible to treat his child's cancer, it would totally be "right".  If he paid $6000 to have a wart removed, then its "wrong"...  But like I asked before, if paying $6000 wasn't worth it, why do it??? 

UNLIKE the hostage scenario he brought up before, taking your kid to the hospital is not involutary.  They did not kidnap his kid, do the procedure, then demand payment.  He walked in said here is my kid ready for surgery, where do I sign up???

Terry

[Hicks]

$6,000 for Hicks to take his child to the ER is absurd, and should not be how it's handled period. The argument of "isn't $6000 worth bettering your kid's life" is insane. He did it to help his child, but (as he said, but I just want to reiterate) OF COURSE IT'S "WORTH IT", but it's also inherently fucking wrong.

1) He said OR, not ER.  That was my mistake. 
2) "Wrong" is relative.  He never stated what the procedure was, so we make a lot of assumptions.  If he said he paid a $6000 deductible to treat his child's cancer, it would totally be "right".  If he paid $6000 to have a wart removed, then its "wrong"...  But like I asked before, if paying $6000 wasn't worth it, why do it??? 

UNLIKE the hostage scenario he brought up before, taking your kid to the hospital is not involutary.  They did not kidnap his kid, do the procedure, then demand payment.  He walked in said here is my kid ready for surgery, where do I sign up???

Terry

*sigh*

You know what the details don't really matter, but it was a procedure to put tubes in her ears after she had three ear infections. 

To be honest I questioned whether she really needed it because her hearing seemed fine to me, she has always been very responsive to sounds and my voice.

But I'm not a doctor and was I going to take chances with her language development?

Of course not.

Do I feel like I sort of got scammed by the entire ordeal?

A little bit.

[DoW]

assuming you have health insurance, the hospital wasn't paid $6,000.
that opens up a whole new can of worms discussion.
single payer system "fixes" that but creates a lot more what I perceive as problems.
regardless of the cost Hicks, glad the procedure went well anyway.

[runawayjimbo]

1. how is it out of context?

Because you chopped off several sentences of a coherent argument into a one liner that you took offense too. You're fucking O'Keef-ing me, and I think you're better than that.

2. thats a shit analogy

Why? Your point was that health insurers profit from people's misery. Doesn't a flaming wreck due to, I don't know, shitty brake pads, also cause misery? And if so, are the producers of that product responsible for that? Maybe you'd have taken less offense to my statement if I had qualified it as "no one profits from intentionally causing other's misery", but then you'd probably harp on the fact that health insurers willfully destroy people's live despite the evidence I provided above that, on the aggregate, completely blows that argument to shit.

3. alcohol is heavily regulated by the gov't

So what, so's health care? I don't think there's any disputing that alcohol causes misery (probably much more than health insurers who deny a whopping 2-3% of claims for apparently no other reason than to wipe their asses with $100s). But, following your logic, if they are profitting from people's misery, aren't they inherently evil?

3.) All of this talk about regarding healthcare denying claims as a "business protecting itself from a loss" is exactly the mindset I'm opposed to. Before you call me out (medical procedures aren't free, training doctors isn't free etc..), I get it. I forgot that Docs don't pay anything out of their pockets or take loans. IF we are going to pay for their training, then that's a completely different ballgame.

Now you want to pay for medical school too?!? You seem like a good dued, aphineday, so please take this with the sarcasm it is intended, but can I please get a hit of what you're smoking because it must be some sweet shit.

Let's take a different approach, since I agree that it would be great to give everyone the greatest healthcare in the world. But here's a quick and dirty calculation to illustrate my skepticism with single payer: since 1950, tax revenues have averaged 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates. Coincidentally, healthcare spending runs around 15% (not since 1950, but that's what it currently is). So, if you want the gov't to take over all healthcare spending, what do we get rid of? Hicks made the very salient point yesterday that maybe we should stop blowing shit up all over the world and we could save a buck or two. So let's cut the defense budget by more than half to roughly $350B (I assume you recognize the need to have some level of defense spending). Now let's say the efficiencies of a gov't provided plan cuts healthcare spending by half (I can hardly type that with a straight face, but let's go for it), bringing total healthcare spending to around a trillion dollars. That brings healthcare and defense spending to about $1.35T or almost two-thirds of the entire budget (note if you are less generous with the cost reductions and assume only 1/4 reduction in healthcare spending, the two amount to 95% of current tax revenues). So you guys tell me: what do you want to start cutting in order to provide this glorious healthcare regime you're talking about? This is all assumes that having a monopoly in healthcare has no other adverse effects like stifiling innovation or the politicization of every individual's healthcare decisions (which I believe would have very severe outcomes on people's health). So while it's all good to talk in broad vagueries like our current presiednt likes to do, just do the math. This shit doesn't add up.