Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

[charliebrown]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

oh you are so correct sir!

1 week after my son was born my company, which was self insured, went chapt 7.
So instead of the bills going to my insurance company, they went to me, because now I had to pay. you know it costs 20k to deliver a child in a hospital with no complications? Anyhow the crap that was on that bill that now I had to pay. There was a line item for baby wipes. 7 bucks a box x 69 boxes. There was a head lamp. I assume this is one the doc uses strapped to his head. Aren't these things re-usable? Was I just the unlucky one who gets soaked with the new light? Again on the bill was another 50 items or so, drugs, bandages, instruments, pillows items that I have no idea if they were used or not. I got the wipes and light and several other items negotiated off the bill after arguing with the hospital.

what that crap is the thing with quotes? Call the doctor, and they say call the insurance call the insurance, and one of those robotic voices says costs quotes are no guarantee of benefits. Well then who the hell is responsible?
Go in for outpatient surgery and your rolling the dice with 20k.

With my CT scan, Since I was on the hook for 20% of the bill I thought it worth while to call around and shop for price. Now I have the exact procedure names and diagnostic codes. Two hospitals say $7200, the other says $3600. So naturally I go to hospital with 3600, as my oop is going to be 720 less. Get my bill and guess what?? price = 7200. Of course I call up and argue, hospital says oh that was our mistake in quoting you 3600, but guess what you owe 7200 anyway, pay up!.

I understand that if you open someone up, things that are unexpected can happen, but if this is just cut and dry stuff, remove and appendix, a mole, hernia etc with no complications, it should be like going to a car repair place.
Get and estimate and the estimate has to be honored.

[MarkL]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

The poster, in other words me, didn't out of convenience or otherwise forget anything. I'm always searching for the truth. I've no loyalties to party. Keep the posts coming, but skip the editorial next time.

Sorry... I should have said Article and the Author. As you essentially regurgitated the Republican talking points without researching the other side, I will confess that I had mentally assumed you were probably a koolaid drinker.

I believe democracy is well served by a vigorous and honest debate. But the Republicans for the last decade or so have accomplished a lot of their goals through lies, and while I have no problems with discussing honest Republican positions, when the party's talking points are obviously and intentionally misleading... it definitely gets me upset. The public should not intentionally be lied to, and it amazes me that the Republican party continues to actively use lies as a tool, and gets away with it (within their own party).

There are lots of great, and true Republican talking points on this plan, indeterminate cost being the best. Obama's claim that he can pay for most of the new healthcare plan by reducing some projected costs in Medicare is based on lots of shaky assumptions.

But when I see the lies, I call 'em. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Nationalization only will make it worse. The problem is the same as in Finance no disclosure. A simple law mandating that all care providers must provide a good faith estimate similar to a HUD form when purchasing a house would go a long way. All nationaliztion does is perpetuate the system where they can add 69 boxes of baby wipes on a tab. Similar to $500 DOD hammers. No disclosure no one auditing the bill leads to massive cost overruns. The solution is not nationalization but clear regulation of the insurance companies and health care providers to provide up front estimates of costs. If you want to have a new procedure that is not covered by your health care provider you should be able to shop doctors to get a competitive price and find a doctor you are comfortable with to do it. You can then budget the cost overrun of what your insurance policy will cover which was fully disclosed to you in understandable terms when you bought it (another sensible regulation) and pay for the procedure. Your altenative is a one size fits all buerocratic nightmare where individual choice and due diligence is off the table.

I know there are a lot of Canadians here but I am going to relay a recent story. A friend's sister was visiting relatives in Canada for 2 weeks. Her daughter had a spill hurt her elbow pretty bad and went to the emergency room. The attending GP physician took an ex-ray didn't see anything so took another ex-ray of the unhurt arm to compare. He compared the two and diagnosed a hairline fracture. He told the mother she needed to see the specialist to get a cast and the closest apointment was in three weeks. The mother not wanting to wait and having an alternative cut her trip short and came back to America to get her daughter checked out. She immediatly got an appointment with a specialist who took one look at the x-ray and said there is no fracture but the bone is dislocated and if it is not treated right away it could lead to a long term problem. Bottom line is she had surgery right away including 6 pins. If she stayed in Canada she would have had her arm in a sling waiting three weeks to find out the GP misdiagnosed her condition.

One possible problem with your Canadian example is that neither you, I, or maybe even the parent knows who was correct with the differing doctors' opinions. Two different opinions take a third to possibly resolve the conflict.

I have personal experience, or wife was the victim, or getting a useless opinion from one doctor (didn't know what was wrong), and a better one from another (knew what would well explain the problem), but the latter was unwilling to perform an operation based on something restraining him, possibly my being as asshole with regard to two doctors she saw in relation to her problem. Fortunately, with a third opinion from a former colleague of mine via telephone and email over a week or so, wife prevailed upon second doctor to do an operation which resulted in positive findings and positive results through over 4.5 years and perhaps even permanently.

There are good doctors and not so good, or even bad, in the US. The problem, if you are the guinea pig, is finding and knowing who are the good ones. A lot of this, I believe would be resolved with more oversight to the entire system, and greater collaboration between specialists (meaning doctors discuss the hard/unclear cases between themselves to arrive at what might be best) vs. sending patients around for multiple opinions so that numerous guys get to take their hits on the patient's/insurance companiy's pocket books.

There are no easy, no perfect answers, but there has to be a better answer that what exists in the US now as it applies to all citizens, and a good bit of that better answer will come from removal of vested interests with big profit motives from the equation.