Discussion:62% Of American Bankruptcies Caused by

And what's this? Quote:

"More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine."

><><><><><>< UPDATE UPDATE......>>>>>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<<<<<<<<

Little Johnny, his parents, and his grandparents, go without needed prescriptions....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31103876

I think this was for a one night stay.

I cannot commprehend how it's jumped to multiples of tens of thousands of dollars in 2009, and though I am not keen on price controls, something is clearly wrong. It just doesn't add up that it should cost so much.

One problem you have with hospitals is that there is not ONE list of charges for different items. At the very minimum, they should be required to have standard charges that apply to all, and to give the patient a hand-out of such charges prior to admission for elective procedures.

What other entity in America does the consumer enter that does not post prices in advance? It's like going to a restaurant, getting a menu, but the menu does not have any prices listed for the items served. This way, you could at least compare one hospital to another.

Sometimes a rip-off is just a rip-off.

And while I am grousing, that fact about 62% of bankruptcies being caused by medical bills was KNOWN to the GOP congress when they passed the viciously anti-consumer Bankruptcy "Reform" Act of 2004. Nevertheless, the justification for passing that ultra finance company friendly law was that consumers were engaging in widespread abuse of bankruptcy protection. It was a false charge used as a small fig leaf to disguise what was nothing but major league payback to powerful banks and banksters.

And NOW, look who we're bailing out!

At hospitals, is it possible that they take the gov't route to expenses - $400 stapler, $250 paperclips, and $60 rolls of sandpaper (aka - toliet paper)? They know insuance companies are going to pay anyway, so what's their motivation to control costs?

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

However, if we agree that the normal, capitalistic ruthless efficiency standards should not apply to medicine, why can't we impose price controls? In other words, if capitalism does not apply, capitalist principles should not apply.

Example: Here in Atlanta we have a place called hospital hill. I think there are like four major hospitals in this area, one for children. Yet they EACH want the newest and best equipment. On top of that, the typical consumer has no way of comparing prices among the hospitals. What I'm saying is that capitalism does not apply too well to this field anyway (can't compare prices), so again, why not price controls?

You can't have a free market in anything if the consumer of the product cannot determine the cost (price) in advance so he can compare.

The fact is, the hospitals don't have a price for anything. It's whatever they can get from each category of customer: i.e. one for Medicare, one for each insurance provider, one for self-pay. Outrageous.

As to what NMex says, I agree: single payor is best. Right now, 14 cents of every health dollar goes to insurance overhead. And I bet that's too low. Wasted.

We all get the SAME insurance. If the "Wealthy" wish to buy more, fine let them. BUT a congressman and a store clerk should have the same insurance.

WILL NOT HAPPEN because Dems or Repubs have NO interest in helping the poor. They say they do, but public housing was the democrats answer for housing.

CROW, I am a right winger but believe we need reform. But please put the kool aid down one moment and list just ONE program meant to help the poor that in fact helped the poor. 1964 Johnson stated "These new programs" will end poverty as we know it". I am waiting.

A report on CNN reported the number of people in fact enjoying unemployment, staying home etc....

Read 'A Tax-and-Spend Conundrum' for a reasoned defense of government programs, and a decent refutation to the old saw that people balance their budgets, why can't government? [clue: many people today don't balance their budget, as our times prove]

http://mauledagain.blogspot.com/

The healthcare industry has the third highest frequency of fraud occurrence in the U.S., according to the ACFE's 2008 Report to the Nation. (#1 is the banking industry.) I don't know what the answer is, but it sure isn't working very well the way it is.

The "submitted charges" by the hospital for use of the operating room plus three days added up to $81,000. The Medicare allowance (accepted by the hospital) was $14,000. Of that, $12,800 was paid by Medicare and the balance by BC/BS. I paid zero.

Is this crazy or what? Either $81,000 is a hugely inflated price for the hospital's services, or Medicare's reimbursement is so understated that it's hard to understand how the hospital can stay in business. Or some combination of the two.

My oldest grandson (now 20 yo) has had chronic asthma since he was a toddler. In his childhood his mother accidentally let his medical insurance lapse. They were living with me and my husband at the time. The only way we could get him covered by our insurance was to formally adopt him, which for various reasons we hesitated to do. (My husband feared he would not live to see the child grow up, which turned out to be true; he died when the boy was 9-1/2.) I tried getting private insurance coverage for him, and could have bought it -- for about $700 a month. When he was sick we took him to his regular pediatrician; she knew we didn't have insurance on him. I paid her fees for office visits and she was generous with drug samples when we needed them. When he was hospitalized, which he was a couple of times, I called the hospital and negotiated with them. I was always able to settle for a cash payment something less than half of the "retail" bill. It was expensive but it didn't break the bank, and it was a heck of a lot less than $700 a month!

Fortunately my daughter later married a Navy man, now retired, and since my grandson is a full-time college student living at home he is still covered by the military insurance. Alas, that won't last forever, and unless something is done pretty soon he will be uninsured again in a couple of years.

I believe we will ultimately have a single-payer system. Probably not in my lifetime, though.

If someone out there reading this is self-pay, be aware that you can hire companies that will help you negotiate a lower payment with the hospital (the company also helps lop some of the accidental "mistakes" off the bill that somehow always manage to get on there).

Snowbird: the absolute best solution of all would be to outlaw all medical insurance, and let doctors and hospitals depend upon payment from patients' own income and savings. This would lower costs in a hurry. The market would truly govern. And the doctors would be taking chickens and vegetables in exchange for services again! But, I don't think this will happen. It would serve the medical establishment right if it did, however.

Of all the "insurance" alternatives, I am convinced that single-payor is the best of a bad lot. Because it is the best and most efficient system, you can bet that the politicians won't be interested in it......

The lead in to your thread "62% Of American Bankruptcies Caused by" raises the question as to what do we expect. Do we expect insurance that will keep a catastrophic illness from bankrupting us or do we expect free health care? A single provider system with complete free health care will become another Great Society welfare system with all the fraud and unintended consequences. Where do I sign up?