Since the OP rarely comes back to the threads he starts, we may never know.
Everyone should have to pay their own health care costs out of their own pocket. Think of the savings if we eliminated third party payments!
I wonder how my kids are going to afford health care, though. Better start mowing the lawn. Or can I just give my kids money, which they can choose to spend on health care, or not? Like, if my daughter gets hit by a car and the hospital sends her the bill for $45,000, would I be allowed to give her $45,000 to pay her expenses?
Would she be allowed to declare bankruptcy? Seems like socialism if she can rack up $45,000 in medical bills and then legally stiff the hospital. It’s one thing if she can just be forced into indentured servitude to pay that off, it’s another if she can just duck the bill. Or what if she racks up $45,000 in costs but dies anyway? She’s got no assets, so the hospital is screwed! It’s socialism gone mad!
So I guess she has to pay up front, out of pocket, or no medical care. Sucks if you have a heart attack and keel over and the ambulance arrives but you’re unconscious and can’t sign the check. Do they just leave you lying on the floor then?
Reading the title I had similar thoughts. What makes people think personal costs will go down. Insurance companies use huge bargining power to control costs.
An individual in need of heart surgery certainly doesn’t have the time or leverage to get a lower price. It’s not like individuals are going to negotiate prices with thier local hospital for every procedure they could conceivably need. That is something insurance companies do.
What the OP stipulates in people getting unessesary procedures because someone else is paying doesn’t really pan out. People don’t want to sit through unessesary procedures even if they are essentially free to them and insurance companies put a lot of time and effort into ensuring they aren’t actually on the hook for something unessesary.
Having no insurance would give hospitals huge power to charge whatever they want. It happens already when the uninsured need medical services, they pay much more than the insurance companies pay for the same procedures.
What’s with this silver bullet the OP gave me?:dubious:
Has anyone ever walked into a medical office recently? Sometimes reading different posts and threads here in the SDMB I have to wonder. I went into one last week and here is what I saw at a rather large medical practice.
[ul]
[li]3 Receptionists, one of who took all the information from me and then told me to wait.[/li][li]3 people called in by nurses, each a different nurse.[/li][li]I was called in by the 4th nurse.[/li][li]We walked past a number of offices, each with a computer and two screens.[/li][li]I was put into one of many exam rooms which had a computer, an exam table, plus a bunch of medical equipment I have no idea what it all was. [/li][li]I see the Doctor.[/li][li]I am on my way stopping by one of the 3 desks in the discharge area.[/li][/ul]
Do people really understand what all of this cost ? Everyone whines about the insurance, but I have to think this is where all the expense really is.
I suppose if we get the receptionists, the nurses, and discharge folks to all work for free that would medical lower costs a lot.
Oh yes, and the Docs. Should they work for free also ?
What about the computers, one in every room. Will Dell and HP just give them away at no costs since this is a medical office ? hopefully so since that will lower medical coast also.
The software. I am sure all the computers run MS Office, can we get Microsoft to give that away for free since this is a medical office ? Then the accounting program, the scheduling software, plus a bunch of other very specialized programs. Again once more in the spirit of lowering medical costs I am sure they will do so.
As long as were are at it what about the electricity cost? I am sure the local utility will waive that to the goal of lowering medical costs.
Apart from our stealthninjadriveby OP, who do you think is unaware that medical practices require money to operate?
As I said sometimes I wonder.
However on a serious note, I think many underestimate how much infrastructure in personnel and other expense it takes for an enterprise to operate. It is all right there in front of our eyes, but goes unnoticed as a cost to the process.
Average expenditures for healthcare on a per capita basis would be less than 10% of what they are now. Of course most of the medical care people now receive wouldn’t be affordable by more than a few people.
From many of the things I’ve read online about medical bills in the US, it looks to me as though your cost problems are (a) giving the service providers incentives to maximise treatment, and (b) basing payments on itemised bills for every last bandage and aspirin (each with its own little mark-up for overheads).
I don’t know how continental insurance-based systems do it, but the UK NHS has a nominal “internal market” between GP-based commissioners of services and the hospitals and other specialist services. Those work on a national block tariff for each form of service (there’s an annual spreadsheet of thousands of them*), and block contracts between commissioners and service providers. That way, doctors and hospitals don’t stand to gain or lose by over- or under-prescribing in any given case, since they have a contract for, e.g., n orthopaedic treatments for the year anyway.
There is a national expert body assessing procedures and drugs for value-for-money (as distinct from the safety agencies), not so much to rule any out as to prevent local commissioners from resisting paying for something that’s already been ruled as value for money, provided a doctor’s prescribed it.
*http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-national-tariff-payment-system-201617
I recently was admitted into the hospital because of chest pain for observation, one day. The hospital charge for, again one day was $8,145.00!!!
Was that what your insurance was charged, or an out-of-pocket cash bill?
Relevant to this thread is to realise the relative cost of healthcare overseas compared to the US. I live as an expat in Thailand. I have zero government coverage, but I have a comprehensive policy that covers me for 3.8 million US a year which costs me $2300 US a year. This policy covers me everywhere in the world EXCEPT the US. And understand that everywhere except the US thats far more coverage than you’ll ever need.
The way it would work is that people would shop around and compare prices much more than they currently do. Take drugs for instance, I have a prescription that cost me 20 dollars a month to fill. That is my plan’s co pay so I pay that no matter where I get it filled. I choose where I get it filled based on how close the pharmacy is to my house. However the cost to the insurance company does vary by pharmacy. According to the michigan drug prices website I can find the same drug for 4 dollars at one pharmacy and at 61.50 at a pharmacy just down the street. If I live closer to the one that sells it for 61.50 then the insurance company is going to eat the 41.50. If I payed then I would also drive the extra couple of miles and save 57.50, Do that a million times a day and that is how consumer choice brings down the cost of healthcare.
I think the OP’s argument is that many hospitals and health care providers deliberately charge more if there is insurance involved. So in theory, without insurance, those hospitals and health care providers couldn’t get away with that sort of over-charging. Although I would say that a world without insurance is pretty scary.
Except that’s not how it typically works now. The insurance companies negotiate what they are willing to pay the pharmacy for a specific drug before you ever go there. While a pharmacy may charge individuals anywhere from $4-$61.50, the insurance company might have already negotiated their payment maximum payout at $10 bucks per prescription at all the pharmacies available to you.
They would drop a ton. If the customers don’t have the kind of money your asking (and they wouldn’t) you would have to drop your prices to stay in business or go out of business.
Like doctors years ago who took barter, say a couple of chickens, to look at your kid.
Is this sarcasm? Sue Lowden is that you?
Not sarcasm, it’s simple economics.
In this hypothetical the vast majority of people couldn’t pay the prices demanded by the medical industry without insurance. They would have to go lower or go out of business. Probably both.
I’very looked at your kid and think it may be leukemia. For a few horses I’ll be able to confirm. Your family farm can’t cover the cost of treatment so for a pig I can sell you a nice casket.
The average family may see a reduction in costs like annual physicals and wellness visits, but even those would likely see a drop in care.
When cutting costs they’ll do things like fire the records clerk. A doctor can check some out just fine without having thier complete medical history in front of them but they can provide a better level of care if they have it.
I never said anything about the quality being the same.