3 ms·
While that's true, that's also true for all other countries where hospitals don't bill you $2,600 for glue and five minutes. So now the question merely shifts
by yongjik 8y ago
While that's true, that's also true for all other countries where hospitals don't bill you $2,600 for glue and five minutes. So now the question merely shifts to why America needs that much money for stocking supplies and keeping doctors sitting at hospital.
- lisper 8y agoGood point. There are three additional items that U.S. hospitals have to pay for that non-US hospitals don't (or that they have to pay a lot more for): 1. Malpractice insurance 2. The overhead incurred by insurance companies and 3. The cost of serving uninsured patients who can't pay out of pocket. The third one is huge. US emergency rooms by law must treat serious conditions -- but only serious conditions -- whether the patient can pay or not (for some value of "serious" -- I'm not sure of the details, but that don't really matter here). So there's a substantial population that can't get preventive treatment and so have no choice but to let minor conditions go untreated until they become serious (and, of course, much more expensive to deal with).
- bb88 8y agoSo currently if you get sick, you "win" the sick lottery and get to pay for other people's illness as a result. What's a fair rate for a cut that just needs skin glue and some antibiotics? $500? or is it more like $2600? Because it sounds like he's paying somewhere around a 5x multiplier just because 1) he got a cut and 2) he can pay it. At some point that won't be sustainable, and emergency rooms will shut down from the cost. People will just stop going to emergency rooms if it means getting a bill for 5x for what it should cost.
- lisper 8y agoIt’s already not sustainable.