4 ms·

> If you don't call the patients who do that without any coverage "free riders", I'm not sure what to say. Surely some people walk in the door without coverage

by glenra 13y ago

> If you don't call the patients who do that without any coverage "free riders", I'm not sure what to say. Surely some people walk in the door without coverage and then - here's a shock - pay their bill later. You know, with actual money. Possibly after a bit of negotiation, but still...

hga 13y ago
But we also know there are a lot of people who never pay, and never intend to/can't pay; a moment with Google will find things like ((http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/trauma-in-the-er-who-pays-for-the-uninsured/article_43f6f99e-bae9-11e1-bece-001a4bcf887a.html http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/trauma-in-the-er-who...): "Nationwide, the uninsured account for nearly a fifth of emergency department visits. [...] Last year, MedStar Washington reported delivering $107.2 million in care for which it was not reimbursed. Nationwide, the total amount of uncompensated care provided to the uninsured reached an estimated $56 billion in 2008, according to one study." And there a very few extreme outliers who make more than a hundred visits a year. Anyway, my point stands, I can trivially point to one major class of free riders, which deflates wild claims that it's all the fault of greedy corporations.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  They reported $107 million. I don't believe that figure at all. They're using every trick in the books to pump that figure up as high as possible. If health care cost as much as it should cost, I bet the exact same load of free-riders would only be cost a tenth that number.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    Right, because if they used the same insurance "negotiated prices", it'd be closer to $15 million.
    - vinceguidry 13y ago
      Wal-Mart would love to have a $15 million theft problem, or even a $107 million one... http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/06/13/theft_costing_walmart_3b_a_year.html http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/06/13/theft_costing_wal...
      - hga 13y ago
        More pertinent to the discussion, especially since Wal-Mart is a bit larger than that hospital, is the nationwide shrinkage estimate of $41.6 billion for last year. Or to try to compare the two, Walmart U.S., not including 622 Sams Clubs, has 4118 locations (http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/locations http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/locations). So the most conservative estimate would be $3 billion/4118, or about $730K per store. About $635K if the clubs are included. If that's the whole world, about $275K (all rounded to a multiple of 5K). Which puts Wal-Mart in tall cotton compared to that hospital.
        vinceguidry 13y ago
        So then look at the nationwide retail sector then and compare that to the hospitals. And to compare a store to the hospital, you'd have to take into account gross revenue. Bet that hospital takes in a hell of a lot more than an average Wal-Mart. I'd put good money that shrinkage is in the same order of magnitude after you take all the relevant factors into account. And if you were to take into account actual costs, rather than those reported by the hospital, it would be a lot less.

by glenra 13y ago

hga 13y ago

But we also know there are a lot of people who never pay, and never intend to/can't pay; a moment with Google will find things like ((http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/trauma-in-the-er-who-pays-for-the-uninsured/article_43f6f99e-bae9-11e1-bece-001a4bcf887a.html http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/trauma-in-the-er-who...): "Nationwide, the uninsured account for nearly a fifth of emergency department visits. [...] Last year, MedStar Washington reported delivering $107.2 million in care for which it was not reimbursed. Nationwide, the total amount of uncompensated care provided to the uninsured reached an estimated $56 billion in 2008, according to one study." And there a very few extreme outliers who make more than a hundred visits a year. Anyway, my point stands, I can trivially point to one major class of free riders, which deflates wild claims that it's all the fault of greedy corporations.

vinceguidry 13y ago
They reported $107 million. I don't believe that figure at all. They're using every trick in the books to pump that figure up as high as possible. If health care cost as much as it should cost, I bet the exact same load of free-riders would only be cost a tenth that number.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  Right, because if they used the same insurance "negotiated prices", it'd be closer to $15 million.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    Wal-Mart would love to have a $15 million theft problem, or even a $107 million one... http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/06/13/theft_costing_walmart_3b_a_year.html http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/06/13/theft_costing_wal...
    - hga 13y ago
      More pertinent to the discussion, especially since Wal-Mart is a bit larger than that hospital, is the nationwide shrinkage estimate of $41.6 billion for last year. Or to try to compare the two, Walmart U.S., not including 622 Sams Clubs, has 4118 locations (http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/locations http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/locations). So the most conservative estimate would be $3 billion/4118, or about $730K per store. About $635K if the clubs are included. If that's the whole world, about $275K (all rounded to a multiple of 5K). Which puts Wal-Mart in tall cotton compared to that hospital.
      - vinceguidry 13y ago
        So then look at the nationwide retail sector then and compare that to the hospitals. And to compare a store to the hospital, you'd have to take into account gross revenue. Bet that hospital takes in a hell of a lot more than an average Wal-Mart. I'd put good money that shrinkage is in the same order of magnitude after you take all the relevant factors into account. And if you were to take into account actual costs, rather than those reported by the hospital, it would be a lot less.