4 ms·
First of all, I am sure the 106K figure is a phony 'list price' figure and not reflective of how much is actually paid. Second of all, you ignore the incredibl
by pravda 13y ago
First of all, I am sure the 106K figure is a phony 'list price' figure and not reflective of how much is actually paid.
Second of all, you ignore the incredible sums of money taken from the 'poor middle class' and handed over to the health industrial complex.
For most of this country's history [the USA], there was no such thing as health insurance. The poor got charity care and the middle class were able to pay.
Why do you think cancer treatment has to be expensive?
- sdoering 13y agoI am not stating, that it might drive prices down. As I would not be stating, that it might drive prices up. I wouldn't do this, because I do not have the necessary facts to make such a claim. If a health-insurance system would work right, the health insurance agency might have a lot of more leverage in this highly regulated market, then any individual paying for its own. But that is just an assumption. Well your next statement regarding my ironic "poor middle class" is just that: a statement, without any facts to support it. I was asking for facts to support your statements. I even did some preliminary research into the costs of comparable healthcare in Germany (where I am from). I just wanted to learn, if a "no health care" system might work better and be cheaper, but I will not just believe your statements, as that would just go against everything, I value. So I really beg you, to show me verifiable facts substantiating your statements. Please?
- riahi 13y agoYour suspicion is correct. It is the price charged to Medicare. Medicare only reimburses $26,898.
- refurb 13y agoYou are correct, look at the post by riahi. The hospital may charge $106K, but Medicare only reimburses them for $15-25K.