3 ms·
The way it works is they bill outrageous amounts in the expectation that they will either be totally stiffed or have to negotiate a much lower settlement (which
by gthank 16y ago
The way it works is they bill outrageous amounts in the expectation that they will either be totally stiffed or have to negotiate a much lower settlement (which is essentially what insurance companies do, AFAIK). In the rare case where somebody actually pays the full bill, they're subsidizing care for those who walk out on the bill (or part of it). This strikes me as an extremely broken way of doing things, but it seems to be the norm, so maybe it's a really, really bad Nash equilibrium.
- Groxx 16y agoThat only makes the costs even worse, especially ethically. They're sapping the most money from people least able to defend themselves from their preying.
- gthank 16y agoActually, most of the people least able to defend themselves walk out on it, just as the hospitals expect, because they have the least to lose. When you're already horribly impoverished, what does one more bill that you'll never be able to pay mean? The ones who really catch it in the shorts are people who have never been unable to pay off an obligation before: their credit and hard-earned reputations are probably ruined (the first for however long a bankruptcy takes to go off the books, the second possibly forever), their day-to-day lives will become a gigantic burden since a bankruptcy will demolish any accumulated wealth/assets, and that's not even considering what it will do to their self-image for them to feel like they aren't living up to their personal standard. Just so we're clear: I think this system is terrible, and desperately hope that something is done to fix it. I'm not sure what the right fix is, but I hope somebody out there finds it.