3 ms·

> the problem is that $18,933.44 for stitches and anesthesia makes absolutely no sense at all. It does make sense if you have a law that limits the profit rate

> the problem is that $18,933.44 for stitches and anesthesia makes absolutely no sense at all. It does make sense if you have a law that limits the profit rate for a particular enterprise so it has no other way of increasing the profit than pushing up the price to a level where 20% of that price is the desired outcome. Netherlands has a really nice system that would probably work for the US as well if there were any political interest to fix the healthcare system. Right now both parties are heavily in the pockets of insurance companies so the only things you can see is failed half-assed, broken solutions like Obamacare that cost billions even to operate a website. https://www.aeaweb.org/research/regulating-health-insurers-aca-medical-loss-ratio https://www.aeaweb.org/research/regulating-health-insurers-a... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare...

danielbarla 6y ago
I don't think 20% of that number seems normal, either. It's still ~$4K, for what sounds like stitches and local anesthesia (unsure, as the link does not seem to open the article for me, only gives a list of other NPR articles). That's over one month of pre-tax salary (edit: for the median US worker), which does not equate with the length, complexity or risk of the treatment. So, what I am saying is that I fail to see what attempts at limiting the price has to do with the price being too high in the first place.
- rasz 6y ago
  >The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. Means their profits are capped at 20%. Only way to grow profits is to inflate costs by colluding with private health providers.
  - danielbarla 6y ago
    Ah, I see. What the parent poster and myself seem to be getting at is that in terms of international pricing, perhaps 1000$ of service happened here (and I'm being generous - in many places, that would be considered outrageously high). A 20% profit margin would put it at 1200$. How it got to 19K is mind boggling.
    - rasz 6y ago
      No. $19K of service happened here as documented in hospital billing, and Insurance company can claim $3800 profit.
  - archagon 6y ago
    As I recall, inflated costs were just as much of a problem before ACA, though?

danielbarla 6y ago

I don't think 20% of that number seems normal, either. It's still ~$4K, for what sounds like stitches and local anesthesia (unsure, as the link does not seem to open the article for me, only gives a list of other NPR articles). That's over one month of pre-tax salary (edit: for the median US worker), which does not equate with the length, complexity or risk of the treatment. So, what I am saying is that I fail to see what attempts at limiting the price has to do with the price being too high in the first place.

rasz 6y ago
>The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. Means their profits are capped at 20%. Only way to grow profits is to inflate costs by colluding with private health providers.
- danielbarla 6y ago
  Ah, I see. What the parent poster and myself seem to be getting at is that in terms of international pricing, perhaps 1000$ of service happened here (and I'm being generous - in many places, that would be considered outrageously high). A 20% profit margin would put it at 1200$. How it got to 19K is mind boggling.
  - rasz 6y ago
    No. $19K of service happened here as documented in hospital billing, and Insurance company can claim $3800 profit.
- archagon 6y ago
  As I recall, inflated costs were just as much of a problem before ACA, though?