Consider this:
Many Canadians and Europeans come to the US for our expensive health care because it is the best. Clinics in border cities here are busy treating Canadians who cross the border for treatment. Oh, it is also quickly available. You don't have to wait months for treatment.
I went to a doctor at 9, had an MRI at 10 and was back in his office looking at 3D models of the scan on his computer. I have friends in England waiting months to see a doctor. My wife had a bug recently and called her GP at 8:30, and had a 9:30 appointment.
PE
For an individual, health care in the US is the best only if that individual has access to it. For the other 50+ million in this country who don't, it's not really very good at all.
having had the unfortunate opportunity to spend about 6 days (over the past month) in emergency rooms and urgent care facilities and hospital rooms... the number of uninsured who receive services is quite astounding.
Given the vulnerability to this kind of thing for the vast majority of working people with the exception of the very rich it always amazes me and I suspect most of the people in the U.K. and the rest of Europe why there is such opposition to a form of state/country health service which through taxes is free at the point of use.
pentaxuser
Receiving emergency treatment is not the same as receiving health care.
In general I agree, but having had the unfortunate opportunity to spend about 6 days (over the past month) in emergency rooms and urgent care facilities and hospital rooms... the number of uninsured who receive services is quite astounding. I'd guess 33% of everyone there... and I live in an somewhat affluent part of Los Angeles. The uninsured are asked to apply for a grant, and if they do not qualify... then they will get stuck with a bill. I'll bet most default one way or another since there is likely no way to ever pay it off. But at least they get serviced and not turned away.
Please read this with a certain amount of healthy skepticism because I am sure there are better ideas out there than my own simple ones.
And we still have people saying that the current system is just fine. No need to change a thing.
Lunacy...
Yes... If you consider rated 37th in the world by the World Health Organisation to mean best!
I don't know of anyone who has travelled from here to the US for health care.
Steve.
They get "serviced" only to the point of stabilization. That's the law. Then they get booted unless they have insurance. Or sufficient personal means.
Emergency care is hideously expensive. Orders of magnitude more costly than simple access to a primary care provider for preventative maintenance. But they do not have access to that level. So when their kids get sick, they do what they have to do. As would any parent. And because they have only been stabilized, they'll be be back again very shortly to be restabilizedif they haven't died before then.
It's an upside down system. Sniffles are being treated at regional trauma centers. And don't think for a minute that those unpaid costs are not being met. Look at your hospital invoice. See that line for ibuprofen tablets (Advil) at $80 per tablet? The insurance companies pay for that. That means you and me and employers paying indirectly through outrageous premiums.
My wife recently had a two night stay at a hospital for a broken elbow that required surgery. The room charge alone, nothing else, was $57,800. For two nights. That's the Motel-6 charge only. No doctor costs. No medical test charges. No rehabilitation. Just the room. Or half of the room, since it was shared.
And we still have people saying that the current system is just fine. No need to change a thing.
Lunacy...
Ken
You're welcome Brian. Even though my career was spent in engineering, managers up through the VP level frequently referred to me as "HR" with a wink when questions arose on these matters. For some reason I always paid close attention to the details; real HR people occasionally visited my office for consultations.Thanks Sal.
My daughter was born with an emergency C-section. I brought my wife into the ER as she was in MASSIVE pain. The ER treatment, the C-section and all other exploratory surgery and recovery costs totaled 40,000 dollars. This is in Chicago, a very expensive city.
You were ripped off big time.
It would appear that most of the money changing hands in the US medical system ends up with the insurance companies.
I said nothing in my last post about uninsured.
Thanks Sal.
The total overall cost for that broken elbow, including eventual rehabilitation, came to just over $100,000. It did include entry into the system via emergency trauma care.
Payable costs between providers and insurance companies are tightly negotiated and controlled. Generally, providers bill at one level, but agree to accept negotiated fee settlements that limit out-of-pocket costs to the insured at a much lower level. So you actually pay the costs via higher insurance premiums and not direct provider reimbursement. Our out-of-pocket was about $4,000. That was a 96% reduction for us. Not too bad. However, to cover the shortfall my employer's cost of his employee's medical insurance premiums are insanely high. This limits his ability to expand and hire.
And because insured patients pay so little out-of-pocket—and uninsured patients almost nothing—there is no visibility of the problem. And no incentive, when feasibile, to shop around for lower costs. It's always somebody else's (the insurance company's) money, so why worry? Except that the insurance companies get that money from us.
It's not a ripoff. In the absence of reform, this is how the system has evolved and works. We deny access to millions, thus forcing them into the most expensive levels of emergency care possible, then spread that unneccesary extra expense to those who do have insurance via insurance company premium structures. In other words, we all pay far more than is necessary to get much lower levels of care (stabilization only) than are actually required.
Something has got to change before we bankrupt this entire country.
Ken
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?