3 ms·

"The problem in the US is not -- let me repeat -- NOT because healthcare services are too available because people don't have to pay." No, the problem is that

"The problem in the US is not -- let me repeat -- NOT because healthcare services are too available because people don't have to pay." No, the problem is that healthcare services are too EXPENSIVE because people don't have to pay directly. Third party payer means that people who clip coupons and shop for a month to buy a TV don't even know how much an MRI costs, and are gladly willing to pay for the most expensive one out there because they are spending other people's money.

Retric 17y ago
In Japan an MRI's total cost is ~200$ which is 1/5 of the cost in the US. They are just machines so not using them does not really save money. In the US they sit there unused most of the time, so when they are used it's expensive. If you just use them more the cost per examination quickly drops off. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102211467.html http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102211467.h... Edit: That's from 1991 today I think it's closer to 50 - 100$.
ahoyhere 17y ago
Yeah, because people who clip coupons have great insurance that doesn't force them to use a specific provider which has a specific product for a specific rate? You ever HAD an HMO? The M is for "Managed" and trust me, they manage it. When I had to see an orthopedist because I sprained both my ankles, I not only had to wait 1.5 weeks, but I had to drive to some random office park 45 minutes away to get the subsequent CT scan he prescribed me afterwards, because that was the option my insurance co. gave me. Health services are not - NOT! - too expensive because people don't have to pay directly. That is not the problem in the US. As I described in the above posts, I have paid out of pocket for several healthcare things in Austria -- before I had the social insurance -- and it cost less than the equivalent in the US, with the exchange rate. The extremely high cost of education, the overhead of insurance company management (it takes time and money to deny all those claims), handling insurance claims (a huge % of administrative work for doctors' offices), the usurious cost of malpractice insurance, and of course, the profit motive in creation of medicine (which naturally raises the cost of the FDA's resources), etc., etc. all conspire to create the expense. These costs can be drastically reduced in a single-payer system, or one close to it, especially one with free higher education. (Austria is not quite single-payer, although every single citizen is insured by the govt. There are, I think, 3 types of social insurance, and some people have additional "hospital memberships" (~US$700/yr) or additional private insurance.) Not to mention that taking away the costs of preventative care, tests, and early intervention can, over a lifetime, reduce the total cost of a person's required healthcare. Why on earth do you want to blame the people who need the MRI, whether they choose the Budget Rent-a-Wreck or the Premium version? (How ridiculous!)

Retric 17y ago

In Japan an MRI's total cost is ~200$ which is 1/5 of the cost in the US. They are just machines so not using them does not really save money. In the US they sit there unused most of the time, so when they are used it's expensive. If you just use them more the cost per examination quickly drops off. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102211467.html http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102211467.h... Edit: That's from 1991 today I think it's closer to 50 - 100$.

ahoyhere 17y ago

Yeah, because people who clip coupons have great insurance that doesn't force them to use a specific provider which has a specific product for a specific rate? You ever HAD an HMO? The M is for "Managed" and trust me, they manage it. When I had to see an orthopedist because I sprained both my ankles, I not only had to wait 1.5 weeks, but I had to drive to some random office park 45 minutes away to get the subsequent CT scan he prescribed me afterwards, because that was the option my insurance co. gave me. Health services are not - NOT! - too expensive because people don't have to pay directly. That is not the problem in the US. As I described in the above posts, I have paid out of pocket for several healthcare things in Austria -- before I had the social insurance -- and it cost less than the equivalent in the US, with the exchange rate. The extremely high cost of education, the overhead of insurance company management (it takes time and money to deny all those claims), handling insurance claims (a huge % of administrative work for doctors' offices), the usurious cost of malpractice insurance, and of course, the profit motive in creation of medicine (which naturally raises the cost of the FDA's resources), etc., etc. all conspire to create the expense. These costs can be drastically reduced in a single-payer system, or one close to it, especially one with free higher education. (Austria is not quite single-payer, although every single citizen is insured by the govt. There are, I think, 3 types of social insurance, and some people have additional "hospital memberships" (~US$700/yr) or additional private insurance.) Not to mention that taking away the costs of preventative care, tests, and early intervention can, over a lifetime, reduce the total cost of a person's required healthcare. Why on earth do you want to blame the people who need the MRI, whether they choose the Budget Rent-a-Wreck or the Premium version? (How ridiculous!)