4 ms·
But that's even worse - now the $143k bill is sent to the government which just shrugs its collective shoulders and pays it... until the money runs out.
by commandlinefan 8y ago
But that's even worse - now the $143k bill is sent to the government which just shrugs its collective shoulders and pays it... until the money runs out.
- plasma 8y agoAs an Australia who enjoys universal healthcare, not once have I ever worried about being sick financially and how much it would cost me. I can go to any doctors I want and easily afford the medication I may need, and may visit a doctor preemptively and without worry about cost. It saddens me that American citizens are suffering with such an awful healthcare system, and no where in the galaxy would I ever wish a system like yours to enter Australia. You should vote for universal, single payer healthcare.
- theredbox 8y agoNo you should not. Can you please stop advocating for something that cannot be comparable to your specific case in Australia ? Do you know the costs of the real medicine and procedures that you mgiht never ever experience but they are still there ?
- jmilloy 8y agoHappily, this extended to me (US citizen) while visiting and requiring stitches. No cost, wonderful people, even though I didn't have my insurance card with me at the clinic and they had to take my word on faith that I would call it in later.
- Scarblac 8y agoWhy would there be a $143k bill at any point? You only get that if there are profit-maximizing companies in the supply chain.
- kaitai 8y agoWish I could upvote this more. This is on point. There never was $143k involved in that service.
- twiss 8y agoThat's not what happens in practice - a government has a lot more negotiating power, and less skin in the game, than individuals who need the treatment. Governments can and do sometimes refuse to pay treatments that are too expensive. This may cause citizens who want that treatment to be upset, but for 99.99% of treatments it leads to them being a lot more affordable.
- estebarb 8y agoNot really: hospitals are public, and doctors are on government payroll, which keeps their prices on check. For example, a similar emergency here would cost nothing to the patient, and less than $2500 to the public health system (mostly helicopter gas): more or less $0.001/tax payer. Costa Rica has around 1000 cases like this per year, so state of the art snake poisoning treatment coverage costs less than $1/tax payer/year (most cases doesn't require air transport). The public health coverage covers everyone depending on the worker so the system receives money (from salary taxes) proportionally to the amount of people it has to cover (think of it like a non for profit health insurance company). A nice result is that competition from government keeps private sector prices low, and more or less still accessible to most population. That is why here private hospitals are profiting from medical tourism.
- grey-area 8y agoOther countries spend substantially less on healthcare, not more.
- Youden 8y agoYou make it sound as if single-payer will lead to higher costs but that's demonstrably not the case. Look at the OECD healthcare spending, which includes both government and individual expenses: https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm The US is over 2x the average with its free for all system while the single payer countries all pay substantially less.