Did you see the price posted somewhere? What if the doctor was correct? I bet he probably was. Again, the incidence will be minimal There are so many items that can be billed in a hospital stay that either the list will be hundreds of pages, or the items listed will be for the most part, inconsequential. And most people will not even understand what they're billed for, or have a comparison point. "Oh, the recto-cranial inversion contrast test looks rather expensive compared with the one at the SeaWorld Marine hospital!!!"
Doctor was wrong, no concussion (no reason to believe there was one as there was no head trauma), just an costly item on the final bill. And you don't need to be a hospital administrator to know MRIs are expensive. The plastic surgeon on the other had earned his keep, no Frankenstein scar.
IIRC, 75% of doctors surveyed admit practicing defensive medicine and defensive medicine increases healthcare costs by hundreds of billions of dollars (I believe it is well over half a trillion). Perhaps you should get one of those recto-cranial inversion tests? In your case it wouldn't be defensive medicine and you could have that large tumor removed from your colon.
1. Link? 2. The incidence of defensive medicine in our healthcare costs is rather low compared with administration, overpriced procedures and drugs, and end of life caring: https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha • The U.S. has the world's highest spending on pharmaceuticals — $1,443 per person. Switzerland is next-highest, at $939. The average for all 11 prosperous countries included in the study is only $749. • A U.S. heart bypass operation costs on average $75,345, according to recent data, compared to $15,742 in the Netherlands and $36,509 in Switzerland. • A CT scan costs $896 on average in the U.S., versus $97 in Canada, $279 in the Netherlands and $500 in Australia. Some of the biggest disparities are in physicians' incomes, too. Malpractice costs are unlikely to be a "huge factor." The researchers didn't examine the impact of malpractice premiums on higher U.S. costs. But Jha says the malpractice impact should mainly show up in "defensive medicine" — the ordering of more diagnostics tests to stave off claims that doctors didn't do enough. "You do see more diagnostic testing in the U.S.," Jha says, "but I don't think that's a huge factor."
Is your google machine broken again? http://www.medicaleconomics.com/health-law-policy/how-much-does-defensive-medicine-cost. Those figures predate Obamacare. I have no idea if the problem better or worse now, but since the ACA didn't specifically address the issue I imagine it is about the same (which is bad).
Wow.Just wow.You just face planted but you are totally sure that you had zero brain trauma from a fall from a mountain bike? And the medical professional should take your word for it? Really?
I split my lip open, I didn't hit my head. Why is that so hard to believe? And no surprise the scan came back negative. A totally unnecessary and expensive procedure. Anyway, it was just an anecdotal example. Why do you guys always focus on the most inconsequential of details and ignore the real issue?
As I sit at the very expensive Northwestern Hospital, waiting for a very expensive CT scan on my kidneys (the rather expensive ultrasound I had last month discovered cysts in my kidneys), I find this discussion pretty humorous. I think advertising the prices is a good thing, but of extremely limited utility, as pointed out above. Advertising prices at the facility is a bit dumb (put the prices online, so patients can compare and contrast in advance for non-emergency services). Practicing defensive medicine due to malpractice concerns is nonsense. There is relatively little malpractice compared to the number of services. Malpractice insurance is expensive due to the damage that can be done by doctors who act negligently, not the "fear" of malpractice. Okay, I am done as I have a needle in my arm and waiting for dye to be injected into my veins.
It actually is a good idea from the perspective of "sunlight is the best disinfectant." You're right that no one actually checks the price list before they go to the hospital, but you know who does? Journalists, gadflies, and other sorts of folks who are more than willing to make a racket about "Hospital A charges way more than Hospital B down the street" or "Hospitals in town A are charging WAY more than similar hospitals 50 miles away." That said, I do agree that the notion that patients are gonna suddenly start shopping around based on this info to be a silly one.
This is interesting. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/new-house-rules-democrats-obamacare-aca/index.html "As part of its rules package for the 116th Congress, the party is granting itself authorization to intervene in the lawsuit that threatens to bring down the landmark health reform law. It directs the House's Office of General Counsel to represent lawmakers in any litigation involving the act and authorizes hiring of outside counsel." Is this new for Congress? The reason to do this is that they don't trust Trump's DOJ to properly defend the law.
It’s also of note that allowing the state legislature to intervene in lawsuits is one of the things Dems are flipping out over in Wisconsin and Michigan’s lame duck power grabs.
Lawsuits will happen, maybe is good that it will be bipartisan and federal level lawsuits may get to the SC faster.
I’m not disagreeing. Just noting that the Dems are doing the same thing at the Federal level that they are freaking out over the Republicans did at the state level. Granted, an obvious difference here is that the AG is an elected position at the state level, but it is appointed at the national level.
When two ugly things merge (a failed political and a failed health care system). Eichmann was called the desk top murderer, as a bureaucrat with no feelings and unattached to the victims he condemned to death from behind his desk. Trvmp and the GOP's are the same breed: Federal worker with diabetes says she can't afford to pay for insulin ... https://thehill.com/.../425113-federal-worker-with-diabetes-says-sh... Vertaal deze pagina 2 dagen geleden - A Department of Interior employee says she can't afford the co-pay for insulin to treat her Type 1 diabetes because of the partial government ...
While her story is sympathetic, it should be noted that furloughed employees are still getting their health benefits. Hopefully the idiots in Washington can reach some kind of resolution soon, unfortunately both sides seem to be digging in deeper. Nice Godwin by the way and congratulations! I think you are the 1 millionth poster to Godwin a BS thread. I am sure the moderaters can show you where to pick up your prizes.
Umm.. Did you not read the post that you quoted before you went all high and mighty? Since she doesn't have an income right now, she can't afford the co-pay for the insulin.. There is nothing in there that doesn't say she doesn't have insurance.
Yaabbut, it's BOFE sides! All's the DeomcRAT's gotta do is give Trump his $5.7 Billion and the problem would be solved! C'mon Dems, do yore job!
Again, I am sympathetic to furloughed employees who didn't get a paycheck last Friday. And if you read the article you will notice it was published on Sunday, which means it was likely written on Saturday (if not before), so she went exactly one day before having to ration her insulin. She has been employed with the government for 6 years and doesn't have enough in emergency funds savings to cover 1 day of co-payments, really? Obviously this article was written not to report news, but rather to invoke ire and outrage, so in that way it was successful.