in my state? It's more likely than you think.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2012/02/13/article/nc_hospitals_dont_want_trials_for_disputed_bills

Quote :

"RALEIGH (AP) — The state Supreme Court heard attorneys argue today whether consumers should be able to take hospitals to court to justify bills that seem excessive. The high court took up the case of Robert Talford, 68, of Charlotte, who represented himself in saying his hospital should have to prove why it's reasonable to charge him up to 24 times more than a local pharmacy for medications. He was taken to Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte in 2007 after experiencing heart problems, but objected to a $14,419 bill after his three-day stay in addition to the $5,556 charged for his hospital room. The state's Court of Appeals ruled last year that the hospital bill submitted into evidence by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority doesn't itemize the charges, and the only evidence that the costs were reasonable come from hospital employees. So a trial should weigh whether the hospital's price was right. ... The justices focused their questioning on Fuller's argument, asking whether hospitals ever compete on price, how a patient can contest a hospital bill, and whether a patient is informed what is covered by the higher cost of a pill the hospital hands them. Hospital prices are overseen by federal regulators, who allow the charges as standard, Fuller said. But Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson asked if having a standard price for services and consumables, like pills, makes that price reasonable, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson asked. "I could argue that standard is a synonym for reasonable," Fuller said."

Government sanctioned racketeering or free market run amok?

2/14/2012 2:56:28 AM

No competition.
No questions/disputes.
No oversight.
No transparency.

= consumer getting screwed.

2/14/2012 3:18:49 AM

Quote :

"objected to a $14,419 bill after his three-day stay in addition to the $5,556 charged for his hospital room."

This is shockingly common among the anecdotal experiences I've heard from friends.

You can't depend on that system to save your life. If they're pulling stuff like $8k for a hospital bed that's not in the ICU and to have a doctor see you for 10 min, that's not a system that has integrity and we can trust to serve the people.

Because of that, government needs to scrap the enforcing of mandatory standards. When a system gets out of control you need to stop controlling it.

2/14/2012 10:16:16 AM

How is "we kept you alive during a heart attack so you must give us basically all your money" not post-hoc extortion?

2/14/2012 11:55:57 AM

Quote :

"Because of that, government needs to scrap the enforcing of mandatory standards. When a system gets out of control you need to stop controlling it."

Nah bro! You gotta control it more, but better.

2/14/2012 12:09:24 PM

OK here's the itemized bill:

-Meds and their administration $260
-Room fee & operational costs $3300
-Examination $230
-Offset for legal liability risk $7000
-Insurance invoice inflation $5000
-Insurance clerical work $2000
-Regulatory compliance costs/Difference between state-regulated care cost and actual cost $2000

2/14/2012 12:26:12 PM

Are there any example of countries that have less government control over healthcare and end up with lower prices and better service? Because last time I checked, the US has the least government control over healthcare out of all the OECD nations and we pay more than anyone else for everything from basic care to major surgery. Seriously, is there an example to point to here or just a hypothetical abstracted scenario?

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 12:40:57 PM

How do you quantify control? If it's sheer number of federal and state regulations pertaining to or at least affecting health care or insurance, the U.S. probably takes the cake on that.

Countries with relatively successful health care models are smaller in population and are more culturally homogeneous. No one has ever pulled off universal health care in a country like the United States. If it's going to be done it would have to be on the state level. The federal government is entirely incapable of doing it. One size fits all isn't going to work here.

2/14/2012 12:54:51 PM

So in other words you have no examples of a model for us to follow except an abstract, hypothetical one.

Quote :

"Countries with relatively successful health care models are smaller in population and are more culturally homogeneous. "

What the fuck do either of those have to do with providing healthcare? And where do all you right wingers pick up this exact same talking point, all with equally untenable reasoning (if any) behind it?

Is it that large population of people with an *ahem* urban culture you're worried about, destroyer? Please explain what kind of homogeneity you're referring to here.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 1:19:00 PM

Quote :

"So in other words you have no examples of a model for us to follow except an abstract, hypothetical one."

My model is private doctors and hospitals providing services to patients, without government telling them what does and does not have to be covered.

Quote :

"What the fuck do either of those have to do with providing healthcare? And where do all you right wingers pick up this exact same talking point, all with equally untenable reasoning (if any) behind it?"

It has everything to do with providing health care. How does the federal government determine what services/procedures are covered when different parts of the country have wildly different culture and different public health concerns? What about when there is not a consensus within the medical community about what works and doesn't? What if one state has a more rapidly aging population, and as a result, has to take a different approach?

The federal-based, top down approach just doesn't allow any wiggle room for a country as diverse as the United States. We are not like Scandinavian countries.

Quote :

"Is it that large population of people with an *ahem* urban culture you're worried about, destroyer?"

I'm worried about having to foot the bill for people that do not and will never give a shit about their health until they're faced with death. I take a lot of measures to stay healthy. Most American don't. I'm not interested in having a lower standard of living so that those people can have an easier time.

2/14/2012 1:26:37 PM

Quote :

"What the fuck do either of those have to do with providing healthcare?"

Not a damn thing. But its the only way they can square how 3rd world countries like Costa Rica can provide universal healthcare, but it's somehow impossible here. Actually, Costa Rica is an especially relevant case given the recent contraception debate. The Costa Rican constitution actually has this article,

Quote :

"ARTICLE 75. The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Religion is the religion of the State, which contributes to its maintenance, without preventing the free exercise in the Republic of other forms of worship that are not opposed to universal morality or good customs."

Yet somehow the government has no problem providing free contraception services to the entire population. How crazy is that?

2/14/2012 1:29:34 PM

You're comparing a country with a population of 4 million and a territory of 20,000 square miles with the United States? You're proving my fucking point here.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 1:31:02 PM

Quote :

"My model is private doctors and hospitals providing services to patients, without government telling them what does and does not have to be covered."

But insurance companies can tell them what does and does not? Okay, that's your model, now point to a country that does it which we can try to emulate, or just fucking admit you're advocating a unproven, hypothetical, abstract fantasy.

Quote :

"It has everything to do with providing health care. How does the federal government determine what services/procedures are covered when different parts of the country have wildly different culture and different public health concerns?"

AGAIN, what the fuck does culture have to do with it? Please, give an example or two of these vastly different public health concerns?

Quote :

" What about when there is not a consensus within the medical community about what works and doesn't?"

What? The medical community is for the most part global, do you think there are regional pockets of witch doctors in Louisiana or something?

Quote :

"What if one state has a more rapidly aging population, and as a result, has to take a different approach?"

Like what? In what ways would the approach be different, and how would that impact administration?

Quote :

"The federal-based, top down approach just doesn't allow any wiggle room for a country as diverse as the United States. We are not like Scandinavian countries. "

You haven't explained yet how diversity changes anything except in the most vague terms, try again.

Oh and I'm not at all surprised to hear a right winger reverting to basically saying "Socialism works if there is no diversity, no multiculturalism, but ONLY then." Congrats on coming out of the closet as being literally a Nazi.

2/14/2012 1:32:38 PM

^^Yes, and a GDP that amounts to 0.3% of ours. Yet again, they manage to provide free healthcare to their entire population, which is generally much poorer and less productive than ours. It must be magic.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:34 PM. Reason : :]

2/14/2012 1:34:25 PM

You haven't made a point at all destroyer. All you've done is said, over and over again, "Diversity + big size = no healthcare. That's just how it is. It just is, trust me."


Oh yeah let's not forget Japan, 1/3 our population and nearly the size of California. Oh but they don't have black people, so they don't count.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 1:36:30 PM

Quote :

"But insurance companies can tell them what does and does not? Okay, that's your model, now point to a country that does it which we can try to emulate, or just fucking admit you're advocating a unproven, hypothetical, abstract fantasy."

I don't want to emulate any countries. I want a free market system.

Quote :

"AGAIN, what the fuck does culture have to do with it? Please, give an example or two of these vastly different public health concerns?"

What if one state has 200% higher obesity than others? What if some states are more unhealthy in virtually every area? Why should other states be convinced to cover those costs?

Quote :

"What? The medical community is for the most part global, do you think there are regional pockets of witch doctors in Louisiana or something?"

What the fuck are you talking about? You can go to two different doctors in Cary, North Carolina and they'll suggest different treatments.

Quote :

"Like what? In what ways would the approach be different, and how would that impact administration?"

Allocation of funds would certainly be different.

Quote :

"You haven't explained yet how diversity changes anything except in the most vague terms, try again. Oh and I'm not at all surprised to hear a right winger reverting to basically saying "Socialism works if there is no diversity, no multiculturalism, but ONLY then." Congrats on coming out of the closet as being literally a Nazi."

We always know when Str8Foolish has lost the debate...he starts calling people racists and/or Nazis.

The United States is called the United States for a reason. It's a bunch of different states. We have the third highest population in the world. In every state, we see very different lifestyles, behaviors, habits, etc. My point here is essentially that these functions should be handled on a more local basis because the federal government is not capable of creating a system that takes care of the whole country.

Quote :

"Yes, and a GDP that amounts to 0.3% of ours. Yet again, they manage to provide free healthcare to their entire population, which is generally much poorer and less productive than ours. It must be magic."

Still proving my point. They can do it because it doesn't require nearly as much bureaucracy or administration. Our size and diversity is an obstacle. Larger bureaucracy moves slower. If it makes mistakes, it's harder to correct those mistakes.

You're all about some examples. Has a country as large (both in population and territory) ever pulled off universal health care?

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 1:42:26 PM

Quote :

"What if one state has 200% higher obesity than others? What if some states are more unhealthy in virtually every area? Why should other states be convinced to cover those costs?"

How do you propose "states" would be covering the costs when we're talking about a universal Federal program? We're still talking about individuals receiving care. An obese person in Florida gets the same treatment as one in California.

Quote :

"What the fuck are you talking about? You can go to two different doctors in Cary, North Carolina and they'll suggest different treatments."

And your insurance company chooses your treatments you can get, unless you're personally a millionaire and can pay out of pocket. Free market offers no improvement here.

Quote :

"Allocation of funds would certainly be different."

Again, you're assuming States serve as intermediaries.

Quote :

"We always know when Str8Foolish has lost the debate...he starts calling people racists and/or Nazis."

We all know you're losing one when you start pulling the race card card.

Quote :

"The United States is called the United States for a reason. It's a bunch of different states. We have the third highest population in the world. In every state, we see very different lifestyles, behaviors, habits, etc. My point here is essentially that these functions should be handled on a more local basis because the federal government is not capable of creating a system that takes care of the whole country."

Wow thanks for more really vague horse shit. Explain to me why a hillbilly in George and a businessman in Seattle wont both benefit from regular checkups and cancer screenings? Give me some specifics or shut up forever.

Quote :

"Still proving my point. They can do it because it doesn't require nearly as much bureaucracy or administration. "

What the fuck. So you think it's more efficient to have a marketplace full of dozens of private companies, each with their own bureaucracy, performing the same functions as all the other companies, including marketing and advertising and research that's concurrent with their competitors research? THAT is what you think is the more efficient option? Multiple, redundant bureaucracies each with massive overhead costs going into the competitive aspect of conducting a business?

And no, proving your point would require actually having a "free market system" to point to that works.

Quote :

"Our size and diversity is an obstacle."

No, it's really not and you still haven't explained any mechanism that doesn't work equally hard against the private system. Is it because people with "gangsta" culture have an extra bone in their foot that we can't expect one system to service them in addition to everyone else?

Quote :

"Larger bureaucracy moves slower. If it makes mistakes, it's harder to correct those mistakes."

And it's easy to wait for dozens of private companies to each slowly move to correct their mistakes?

Quote :

"You're all about some examples. Has a country as large (both in population and territory) ever pulled off universal health care?"

The US is uniquely gigantic (4th) and populous (3rd), it seems pretty obvious your criteria are chosen precisely so that no other country on Earth fits, public healthcare or not. Japan is the size of California and has 1/3 the population and they've been pulling it off fine for a long time, even as their population is getting ridiculously old.

2/14/2012 1:56:14 PM

Quote :

"How do you propose "states" would be covering the costs when we're talking about a universal Federal program? We're still talking about individuals receiving care. An obese person in Florida gets the same treatment as one in California."

Take states out the equation, then. I pay into a system so that others can get treatment for their poor habits. Sure, in some cases, I pay into a system so that others can get treatment for diseases that happened due to genetics or things out of their control, but I'm still poorer as a result.

Point is, we live in a country where a lot of people don't give a shit about their health. Were the United States to implement universal health care, we'd have a lot of people getting treatment for diseases that are years in the making, with people like me getting comparatively little benefit from it.

Quote :

"And your insurance company chooses your treatments you can get, unless you're personally a millionaire and can pay out of pocket. Free market offers no improvement here."

Yes, and I can choose from many different insurance companies. With a state-run system, there's no choice there...what's covered is covered. You'd be totally shocked when certain services were or were not covered in order to benefit some corp that gains an unfair advantage.

Quote :

"Wow thanks for more really vague horse shit. Explain to me why a hillbilly in George and a businessman in Seattle wont both benefit from regular checkups and cancer screenings? Give me some specifics or shut up forever."

They might both benefit, but one will benefit more. You'd undoubtedly have areas of the country that sucked up way more funds than others. I'd rather keep the system decentralized so you had less of that disparity.

Quote :

"What the fuck. So you think it's more efficient to have a marketplace full of dozens of private companies, each with their own bureaucracy, performing the same functions as all the other companies, including marketing and advertising and research that's concurrent with their competitors research? THAT is what you think is the more efficient option? Multiple, redundant bureaucracies each with massive overhead costs going into the competitive aspect of conducting a business?"

Quote :

"And it's easy to wait for dozens of private companies to each slowly move to correct their mistakes? "

You apparently have no clue how business works.

When your competition is coming out with new services or policies, you don't have years to catch up. You have months, and you will have customers coming to you saying, "Your competitor offers this. Why don't you? We might have to cancel with you and go with them." Competition spurs efficiency because profit depends on your ability to pull in business.

Quote :

"The US is uniquely gigantic (4th) and populous (3rd), it seems pretty obvious your criteria are chosen precisely so that no other country on Earth fits, public healthcare or not. Japan is the size of California and has 1/3 the population and they've been pulling it off fine for a long time, even as their population is getting ridiculously old."

Is Japan not more culturally homogeneous than the United States?

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 2:53:56 PM

Quote :

"But insurance companies can tell them what does and does not? Okay, that's your model, now point to a country that does it which we can try to emulate, or just fucking admit you're advocating a unproven, hypothetical, abstract fantasy."

Yeah, I hate to sound like a US exceptionalist, but we don't have the option to follow. If you took a model that does exist and implemented it here, it wouldn't work the same, and it would likely completely fail.

Go by the size of the medical industry. Not only is our economy the largest, but we have one of the largest % of GDP going to health care. It's so huge, it's unique in nature. I think you have to go by what works in principle. Ultimately, if the fundamental nature of heath care is changed, it'll probably be us who does the changing.

2/14/2012 3:00:22 PM

i can't wait for 5 years from now when gas is $10 a gallon, and almost depleted from reserves, we haven't invested in electric cars or nuclear energy and we have a huge energy crisis, and we pretend like we can still afford universal healthcare, and take care of every single 'needy' person on the planet.

it's gonna be awesome.

2/14/2012 4:19:31 PM

I'll continue to shake in my boots at the threat of future crisis

while ignoring the present one

"This is the best we can do" is not a credible argument coming from the people intentionally lowering the bar, sorry

2/14/2012 4:21:55 PM

it's gonna be funny seeing you happily going to the doctor for free paying 45-50% taxes and also paying $10 for a single gallon of gas in your 20mpg Tahoe. sure you'll have great health, and yet for some odd reason still living in a tiny apartment barely affording any meager type of entertainment despite your $130,000 annual salary.

complaining and wondering what went wrong with our economy since liberal presidents had their way and finally got their wish of a near 100% entitlement society.

"guize i thought it would all just magically work like the obamator said it would"

2/14/2012 4:40:46 PM

haha it's super-astounding how little you understand of the opposition and how they think

meanwhile they have you mapped the fuck out

2/14/2012 5:22:34 PM

I wouldn't really say I have him mapped the fuck out so much as I just totally disregard any idea that originates in that lizard brain of his.

Destroyer, I feel like you can see how ridiculous pack_bryan is as well. Well, he's a lot closer to you in policy positions than you think he is. Get out of that ideological corner you've backed yourself into and come meet the sane people sitting at the table in the middle of the room.

2/14/2012 5:37:23 PM

Quote :

"Take states out the equation, then. I pay into a system so that others can get treatment for their poor habits. Sure, in some cases, I pay into a system so that others can get treatment for diseases that happened due to genetics or things out of their control, but I'm still poorer as a result."

It's not fair that people in Charlotte help fund Raleigh roads.

2/14/2012 5:38:13 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't really say I have him mapped the fuck out so much as I just totally disregard any idea that originates in that lizard brain of his. Destroyer, I feel like you can see how ridiculous pack_bryan is as well. Well, he's a lot closer to you in policy positions than you think he is. Get out of that ideological corner you've backed yourself into and come meet the sane people sitting at the table in the middle of the room."

He focuses on the wrong things. You're in the corner with "sane people" that want to replace private ownership with workers' councils. I'll stick with what I know, which is that use of force against peaceful individuals is wrong. You can keep begging for good government. When you're on your death bed, don't be surprised that it never came.

Quote :

"It's not fair that people in Charlotte help fund Raleigh roads."

Why should someone in Charlotte pay for a road in Raleigh?

I mean, this is where 90% of arguments against libertarianism go first. "But what about the roads?" What about the roads? The people that benefit from the building of a road pay for it. I shouldn't have to pay for a culdesac to be built in your neighborhood.

Regardless, let's stop jailing drug users, let's stop killing people overseas, let's stop giving free money to banks and corporations, and let's stop having the government manage things that it has demonstrated a strong tendency to fuck up. Then we'll talk about roads and find a solution that doesn't involve holding a gun to someone's head.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 6:07:15 PM

How do you feel about public funding of fire departments?

2/14/2012 6:23:00 PM

I think I'd rather buy insurance than pay taxes, but I don't really have a problem with them. Local fire departments work rather effectively, although there's little doubt that a private agency would do it cheaper and more effectively due to competition.

That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about federally funded and managed health care programs. My entire argument is that a national program with a diverse population of 315 million is not likely to work. Do you think we should have a federal fire department? How well do you think that would work?

2/14/2012 6:33:57 PM

Quote :

"Are there any example of countries that have less government control over healthcare and end up with lower prices and better service?"

You don't even need to go outside of our country. All you need to do is look at the examples here, including any elective surgery not covered by insurance (such as LASIK) or something like veterinary medicine, which despite huge growths in both quality and breadth of services offered has not seen anything near the massive climb in costs that other medical care has.

2/14/2012 6:39:09 PM

The free market works for elective care because it's elective. Consumers don't risk their lives by saying "no".

2/14/2012 7:07:47 PM

And non elective care is already provided by EMTALA. Most health care is elective, or at the very least non emergent and could be shopped around. There are problems with our current system to be sure, but they are with the fact that opaque pricing and insurance makes it nearly impossible to price shop, and since insurance is linked to your employment rather than you as a person, shopping for insurance is usually a no go as well.

2/14/2012 7:19:51 PM

hospitals are run by idiots and staffed by idiots. They run retardedly long shifts and then shift the costs of their mistakes and waste onto insurance and patients.

if you want to fix healthcare costs you need to target providers first and do some serious digging into their practices.

this will never happen because the healthcare industrial complex makes way too much fucking money for the people it supports,

2/14/2012 8:01:29 PM

Quote :

"What about the roads?"

Roads are just an easy way to make fun of the hopelessly pathologically ideologically myopic.

2/14/2012 8:02:46 PM

Quote :

"Roads are just an easy way to make fun of the hopelessly pathologically ideologically myopic."

I'm myopic? You're the one that starts from a default position of "the only solutions are government solutions". I'm open to alternatives to state force.

2/14/2012 8:37:08 PM

I was unaware that my default position is "the only solutions are government solutions." Thank you for enlightening me?

Yes, your inability to follow your ideology beyond the tip of your nose is myopic. Or maybe it's blindness--I'm not a doctor.

If the world worked the way you think it should, civilization literally would not exist.

2/14/2012 9:16:02 PM

Quote :

"If the world worked the way you think it should, civilization literally would not exist."

As if hyperbole like this is helping anything. How in the world do you figure?

2/14/2012 9:29:52 PM

d357r0y3r literally cannot conceive of how he might benefit from a road he will never drive down, a fire department he will never call, or the good health of someone he will never meet.

I am at a loss as to how any group of people, believing firmly that no effort or expenditure should be made towards anything not directly benefiting them as individuals, could ever possibly form a society of any size or significance

But that's just me.

2/14/2012 10:19:33 PM

That was pretty eloquently put.

I also wanted to add that this:

Quote :

"hospitals are run by idiots and staffed by idiots. They run retardedly long shifts and then shift the costs of their mistakes and waste onto insurance and patients. if you want to fix healthcare costs you need to target providers first and do some serious digging into their practices. this will never happen because the healthcare industrial complex makes way too much fucking money for the people it supports,"

is just another way of putting exactly what myself and several others have been saying. Obviously these costs are absurdly high and they are only getting higher. Why should government not step in and stop this? Why do you think this would happen less if government was removed from healthcare.

Oh wait, you're a libertarian purist and you believe that a private company should be auditing this and not the government. Surely the hospitals won't create their own auditing institutions to save us all the hassle of spending any money on it.

2/14/2012 11:32:02 PM

Quote :

"Most health care is elective, or at the very least non emergent and could be shopped around."

Shopping around is not the same as not shopping at all. I can't think of a comparable system in the free market.

2/15/2012 1:37:38 AM

Quote :

"As if hyperbole like this is helping anything. How in the world do you figure?"

It's not our fault that free-market enthusiasts know absolutely nothing about the mathematical, logical, and generally academic work done studying the properties of "free markets" in the past 100 years. Or, at the very least, actually read and understand Adam Smith (haven't met a single conservative who has accomplished this task; of course, these are always the people who proudly chant "invisible hand").

Peeling back democratic controls on runaway private power results in oppressive governments. I can't imagine what's hard about this to understand; some of us recognize that authority is the problem, not whether it's nominally part of the public or private sector. If libertarians got their ideal we'd be ruled by warlords in months; warlords who would probably have us begging for Republicans (or the Taliban) to take charge.

2/15/2012 7:52:07 AM

Quote :

"I'm myopic? You're the one that starts from a default position of "the only solutions are government solutions". I'm open to alternatives to state force."

You're not myopic you're completely, humiliatingly ignorant. You love to talk about free markets but don't even know what assumptions are necessary to create one.

I'm trying to imagine being simultaneously so interested in something and simultaneously so unaware of it. You're exactly like an American Christian.

Seriously dude; "myopic" presupposes you're looking at something, anything. The only thing you're gazing at is your own navel, as is painfully obvious to anybody with a clue. Please stop insulting the fact that I actually spend time on you, look inwards, and try to fill in the gaps of ignorance that you cannot. possibly. be. unaware. of.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 7:53:45 AM

Quote :

"Obviously these costs are absurdly high and they are only getting higher. Why should government not step in and stop this?"

Because the gov't is really going to reduce costs with its $1000 toilet seats and its $500 hammers. Anyone who thinks that the gov't can reduce costs needs to be drug out behind the woodshed and put out of their misery.



aaaaaaaaand another double post from McDouche. Maybe you could bother to get your prescription checked so you can fix YOUR problem with seeing the "Edit Post" button.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 9:41:03 AM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r literally cannot conceive of how he might benefit from a road he will never drive down, a fire department he will never call, or the good health of someone he will never meet. I am at a loss as to how any group of people, believing firmly that no effort or expenditure should be made towards anything not directly benefiting them as individuals, could ever possibly form a society of any size or significance But that's just me."

The road makes plenty of sense. Goods get to market on a road, which I then buy. Of course, goods sometimes grow on a tree, which I then buy. Why shouldn't the government take over the agriculture industry?

To say that the government needs to manage something, or that the government is the best or optimal entity to manage something, is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. To say that the government should not manage something is the default position. The burden of proof is on you, not me. It doesn't matter that we've had government for thousands of years. We've had religion for thousands of years, too.

Quote :

"I am at a loss as to how any group of people, believing firmly that no effort or expenditure should be made towards anything not directly benefiting them as individuals, could ever possibly form a society of any size or significance"

How is that what I've stated? I don't want the federal government controlling health care or managing the building of all roads. You've taken that to mean that I don't want there to be health care or roads at all.

Quote :

"It's not our fault that free-market enthusiasts know absolutely nothing about the mathematical, logical, and generally academic work done studying the properties of "free markets" in the past 100 years."

That's all I'm giving you on this load of horseshit.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 10:08:35 AM

Government legislating cost of healthcare ... ?!?!

You mean like how congress passes a "doc fix" every few months, literally setting Medicare payment rates for physicians?

This is nothing new. Asinine, but not new. If patients can drag hospitals to court, costs will just be further shifted, per usual.

2/15/2012 10:22:16 AM

Quote :

"But its the only way they can square how 3rd world countries like Costa Rica can provide universal healthcare, but it's somehow impossible here."

LOL, some of the "points" you read on here are amazing.

People value seeing a doctor when they are sick and quality care.

The problem is we have a nation of children that expect someone else, the adults, to pay for the stuff they need. So people demand MORE be covered by govt and insurance then bitch that the costs are going up. Say everyone should have insurance, then bitch about wait times. We want the best most expensive drugs, but dont expect ME to pay for it. I "need" it, give it to me. The disconnect from reality is truely sad.

From the sounds of it the guy from the article needs a reality check to. He is upset that hospital charges more than a local pharmacy. (as most of you seem to share his thoughts) Well lets compare. The hospital is forced to provide free meds to people who cant pay, the pharmacy isnt. The hospital will have a TON more overhead and liablity than a local pharmacy. Thus driving up the price more. The staffing of a hospital to provide care 24hrs, would be MUCH higher than a local pharmacy. I know many of you feel the hospital should be staffed with highly trained workers, available 24/7, and work for free but in the real world things dont work that way. This guy is complaining simply bc he had to PAY and is used to not having to.

My guess is that he didnt have insurance, took a risk of not being covered and it bit him in the ass. If he has the money he should pay for the services he used. He might not like it, but he chose to save money each month by not paying for insurance and took a risk. HE choose to drive to the hospital to have himself looked at, HE should pay the bill. (although they would work with him on it im sure)

I look for this guy to take movie theaters and restaurants in airports to court next.

2/15/2012 10:38:55 AM

Quote :

"Hospital prices are overseen by federal regulators, who allow the charges as standard"

More govt control is the answer. They have done such a WONDERFUL job with their ever increasing control over healthcare. I get so excited thinking what wonders they will come up with with even more control.

2/15/2012 10:44:30 AM

Quote :

"The problem is we have a nation of children that expect someone else, the adults, to pay for the stuff they need."

Do you know how to communicate in something other than Republican talking points? "We" are not lazy or diligent. Applying these qualities to a population as a whole is nonsense. On that scale, people behave pretty deterministically, whether you understand the dynamics or not.

News flash: movie theaters don't charge you as you're walking out. If you believed in personal responsibility, then maybe you should believe in a hospital playing by the same rules as other businesses and obtaining consent from their customers for the transaction.

The game you're playing is good cop bad cop. The liberals mandate that health care be provided without qualifiers, then the conservatives mandate that the individual who received that care exercise "personal responsibility" and pay for it. This is a schizophrenic political position.

2/15/2012 10:51:36 AM

So you think ~20k is reasonable for a fairly routine 3-day stay in a hospital? You don't think this man at least has a right to understand why he was charged so much?

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 11:02:46 AM

^^It is simply human nature and basic economics. As the costs of goods or services changes, so does consumption of that good/service. As the price of healthcare for the individual goes down, they consume more. No talking points, just reason.

There is no utopia mrfrog. You cannot provide the best of everything, to everyone and it be free to all.

And sorry if I touched a nerve, I just get pissed seeing people afford crap they dont need then bitch about paying or bitch that someone else isnt paying enough for the stuff they actually need. Ive seen kids who couldnt see to get out of a room go without glasses for a year as the "parent" waits for the insurance to be eligible for the "free" glasses. Then pull out a damn Iphone.

In your movie theater example, are you suggesting that the individual pay for the services they use? If so I agree with you.

^regardless of what "I think" is reasonable. The people who made those charges do. (the federal govt) So you should be happy, they have it under control. It wasnt that evil hospital, the govt ok'd it.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 11:05:54 AM

Actually no. This whole time we've been talking about how much a business charged a customer in a private transaction.

2/15/2012 11:10:22 AM