Consistancy in health care expenses
 

So my wife and I just had a baby. We have ok insurance and in the last few weeks all of the bills have been coming in. The first thing that sticks out is the flatout price gouging for certain things.

For example, they gave her a medicine packet containing a 20 tablet bottle of tylenol, a 20 tablet bottle of motrin, a couple of sample tubes of lansinol (cream to rub on the breasts after feeding) and a couple of samples of a few random things. They charged us over $60 for the whole package of shit. For that much money I could have bought 250 tablet bottles of the painkillers, the largest available retail size versions of the other shit and still have money left to buy lunch with. Looking at the sizes of these things, I really think these things are either given to the hospital to pass on to the patient in hopes that they will buy the stuff or sold at very low rates. The profit margins on these things must be extreme. How is this justifiable?

That issue is nothing compared with the rest of the bills and how things sort out between the hospital and my insurance company. I don't have the bills with me right now, but the insurance company and I are actually paying only about half of what the hospital asked for originally. The way it works is the hospital sends a bill for 10k. The insurance compnay looks at pricing agreements and says that the bill should actually be 5k. The hospital then sends a revised bill and the insurance company pays their portion and tells me to send the rest of it to the hospital.

I'm assuming the actual prices that each insurance company pays is different but if a random uninsured woman got the same service we got, she'd be stuck with paying all of it. She wouldn't be able to negotiate the price. How is it legal for these types of agreements to be made?

Everybody should be paying the same price for the same service. Best Buy can't charge me $500 for a TV that costs the average guy $1000 so why are hospitals allowed to make agreements that serve them and screw the little guy?

I really think there should be legislation introduced that forces the hospitals to provide the same services at the exact same prices. The govt would not be imposing any actual prices, just stating that everyone pays the same amount.

Actually, Best Buy CAN charge you 500 for a 1000 dollar TV, and they do. Here's how it works:

A large retailer (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Your insurance company) sits down with the providers of the goods they re-sell (TV Makers, or a hospital) and says: "For procedure X (or, for That TV), we're going to pay Y amount of dollars"). Every insurance company, HMP, PPO, etc. does this. Even Medicare tries to do this,althought they have the added burden of Congress stepping all over them when they try too hard (think: Drug Discount Card).

Now, the reason the costs are so high originally is a number of factors: One, insurance. All that malpractice, liability coverage, etc, etc...that costs. A lot. So, the hospital has to cover that. And to cover it, they pass the cost onto the consumer...you. If they can't, well, then they get rid of the radiology department, or they cover the liability by outsourcing the job to India, like Mass General in Boston did. Second, there's administrative costs associated with everything. You know, what they call "overhead". To get an asprin to you, they have to have a purchasing department to buy it, an accounting department to pay for it, a pharmacy to dispense the pill, storage to store the bottle the pill is in, a nursing or orderly staff to get that asprin to you, a nurse to give it to you, and a doctor to prescribe it...which is why it costs $25 per pill. And don't forget, all hostpital workers have unions. Including the doctors. They call their union the AMA, but it's the same deal.

But, in the long run, I wouldn't worry about it too much, since all medicine in America will be socialized (a la Canada and Britian) within 20 years...between the insurance companies, medicare and medicaid, and the aging population's need for more and more medical care, the entire operation will be nationalized and run with the same grace and efficiency as the airline industry.

Oh please. Give me a break there. First of all these are OTC drugs that were given to us under the illusion that they were samples. They NEVER told us that the package would cost $60. Otherwise, we would have refused and bought the shit on our own. There was no perscription, no pharmacy was involved in dosing it out, and the drugs were not administered like perscription druges.

The supermarket that sells these drugs has a purchasing department that buys it, an accounting department that pays for it, a stocking department that puts it on the shelf, a cashier that rings it up, and a bagboy that puts it in a bag. Most national supermarket chains have unions too. Despite that, they are able to sell me a bottle of 20 OTC Tylenol pills for about $3 when the hospital sold it to me for $20. Furthermore, at the supermarket didn't tell me "here take this with you so you have them when you get home," implying that they are FREE samples (since they are sample-sized, not full typical packages, and then send me a bill a month later for 6 times the retail price. The supermarket said this item costs you this much and then I am able to evaluate the cost and benefit of buying it there.

You are confusing the other issue also. The hospital is the service provider. They are the example of Best Buy. The hospital is allowed to make deals with certain groups and establish prices with them. Everyone else pays twice as much. The insurance provider and the insured are customers. My insurance divides providers into 'network' and 'non-network'. Network providers are hospitals that they have made pricing agreements with. Best Buy does not have the right to practice price preferencing (or discrimination based on how you look at it) for their products.

Cuba has a lower infant-mortality rate than the U.S. without using a single $20 bottle of tylenol...If only we knew their secret!

Ya and somehow I doubt they have problems with certain people paying twice as much for the same service than others with insurance. Oh wait, they have a socialized medicine program.

Of course something has to be wrong with this picture. It can't be possible that a pinko commie country does something better than the land of the free and overcharged!

Kutulu: Did the hospital say they medicines they gave you were free? Did the package say "FREE SAMPLE - NOT FOR RESALE" on it anywhere?

On the second thing, you're the one who has it backwards. The hospital it the SUPPLIER, the insurance company is the RESELLER. The insurance comapny negotiates the price, which they then resell to you, via the deductions from your pay. Think of it as a layaway plan. Trust me on this one, this IS how it works. HMO's are especially good at this, and Medicare, being the biggest HMO of them all, is the best.

If the insurance company was actually reselling the service then the insurance company would be the only person who gets my money. Instead the insurance company negotiates the price, pays a portion and tells me how much I need to pay DIRECTLY to the HOSPITAL.

Anyways, you are missing the point. The point is that two people can have identical visits to the hospital and the hospital recieved vastly different amounts from both people. Not having insurance should not mean that an x-ray costs twice as much. Uninsured people are getting fucked over.

The solution is MARKET FORCES.

My wife just had a baby as well. The hospital stay costs were insane, but because of how insurance works, we didn't care. We had no reason to shop around for a good deal, it was all paid for, no matter where we went our deductable would be the same armount. As long as there is no reason to go to a lower cost hospital why go to one?

Oh and Locobot please have your children in the socialist paradise of Cuba, I'm sure its much better then the level 3 maternaty ward my wife was in :D

Well travel between our countries isn't exactly open otherwise I'd seriously consider it - no joke. The healthcare I'd receive there would be vastly superior to what I would receive here with no health insurance. Again, Cuba may not have "level 3 maternity wards" (whatever the hell that is) or $20 bottles of tylenol and yet they have a lower infant mortality rate than we do. So yes, in the case bringing newborns humans into the world the Cuban system is superior to our own.

I'm not talking about shopping around for a cheaper hospital. I'm talking about two people going to the same hospital and getting the same service from the same doctors, etc. Everything is the same in the service. The hospital recieves less money by treating the person who has insurance because they have agreements that set prices for services. The uninsured does not have that agreement so they pay whatever inflated cost the hospital comes up with.

As to level 3 maternity ward, it means shit if more babies per capita are dying in American than Cuba.

Damn we have to consider people with no insurance?

F@*^ing lazy asses, screw them, they just raise my taxes because the government welfare and/or my insurance premiums because they don't pay their medical bills.

Sterilize those bastards. If they can't pay the hospital bill then put that kid up for adoption to a family that can. We all know those welfare mamas have kids just to get more juice from the government they don't care.

Course we can't abort those kids. That would just be wrong.

All these damn sissy non-insured minimum wage earning "what about us?" crying losers just take up my resources and get whatever they want while I have to pay more for my luxury private hospital room, and my well dressed country club golf partner doctor to come in and check up on things and make sure I can have a script for anything I need.

See this is exactly why we don't need or want socialized medicine to any degree because these people would take advantage of the system.

Sorry was channeling Limbaugh and the Neo-cons. I do not personally, nor have I ever heard 1 person say all those things at the same time. I have, however, heard each one of those beliefs stated, from Limbaugh callers, and he agreed to each one, even going so far as to add 1 or 2 other rants. So I guess the above is an amalgamation of how Limbaugh "the spokesman for the true conservative" must feel.

You get a card that drops your price by 10%.

Your business negotiates a 40% volume discount with another company.

This removed all bargaining power from the insurance companies. Part of the reason why private insurance is 'more efficient' than public insurance is that each insurance company fights tooth and nail to lower their costs relative to each other.

I actually suspect that Cuba's infant mortality rate is at least partially a lie. Low infant mortality makes Cuba look better. All they have to do is count things wrong.

The reason why public health insurance works is because of the lemon problem.

If insurance costs Y$, you won't buy it unless you have some reason to believe you might spend more than Y$ in on health expenses that the insurance covers.

Now, say the insurance companies are allowed to refuse coverage to sick and old people, or charge them huge amounts to sign up. Now, healthy people can afford coverage -- but people who get sick when not covered are screwed for the rest of their lives.

If insurance companies aren't allowed to make decisions based off the same information that people can, then they have to charge for the insurance at a hugely inflated rates.

People who know they are healthy look at the insurance rate, and think "hmm, this isn't worth it". Everyone who is sick looks at the rate, and says "I'll buy, that's a bargain".

The company loses money. So the company has to raise rates.

As the rate goes up, healthier people are less likely to buy. Eventually slightly sick people won't want to buy, and then nobody.

This is why corperate socialized health insurance is common. You have to get the health insurance, so they can spread the cost out. Meanwhile, buying health insurance privately costs an arm and a leg.

The articles talking about how to be an entrapaneur in the USA that advise you to get a job at McD's to keep health insurance are evidence of how stupid the system really is.

Stop payment on the bill? Complain to their billing department?

Part of it is that people in Cuba become Doctors by default. Smart? Well, not much else to do but become a Doctor...

Sorry for missing your point, I didn't read well enough while seeing patients on and off, its a slow day.

Cuba rocks, I'm sure there are no factors or fudging of the data going on that would account for the differences.

As for the differences, welcome to the power of bulk buying. The same reason Walmart gets to buy cheaper at wholesale, is why this happens. Its no different the idea of collective bargaining. Its saying 'we will bring you X amount of business but you can't charge more then this'. Because of the amount of business you say yes to it, even though you would want a higher price normally. I have been asked to do this in my office and I refuse to, but a hospital relies a lot more on insurance than I do.

I get the logic behind it but ethically it seems wrong. The pricing should be consistant for everyone, regardless of whether they are insured or not.

Theres only one way to achieve that. don't use insurance companies.

LMAO I guess I'm the only one who thought this was amusing.

Hehe if the Cuban doctors are anything like their old USSR counterparts, god help them all.

My understanding is that Cuban doctors are top-notch.

That's what I've heard along with high literacy, anyway.

I thought it was amusing too, but likely for a different reason.

AFAIK, our airline industry is not nationalized. My understanding is that current bankruptcy patterns emerged after the industry was deregulated.

Didn't that occur as a policy under the poster's avator's governance?

So yeah, I thought the whole comment was weird.

Cuba:
1: You're trusting Fidel Castro's regime. This is, to say the least, very silly.

2: Their equipment is largely 15-25 year-old Soviet-made stuff. Not exactly "cutting edge." Their antibiotics and techniques are similarly dated.

3: You're trusting Fidel Castro's regime.

4: Socialized medicine is universally mediocre. This is why you see anyone that can afford it in Europe, Canada, and Asia coming to the US for surgery and treatment. Ali al-Sistani, anyone?

5: Let's not forget that you're trusting Fidel Castro's regime. Murderers, tyrants, and lunatics extraordinaire.

I don't know why you repeated me trusting Castro's government three times. I never said I derived my information from that source.

I'm also curious how you know what kind of technology or robotics they may or may not have, and how that even correlates to the caliber of doctors they have.

And they would have communized medicine rather than socialized medicine, so point #4, even if accurate, isn't relevant.

The have that...in Canada, and the UK. It's called socialized medicine.


smooth: You're right, the airline comparison was a bit off. I was just trying to point out that any industry that tries to have it both ways, going between regulation (the airports, flight paths, the union contracts), and deregulation (ticket price competition and no frills airlines) creates a chaotic situation that's difficult to maintain.

It is ironic that hospitals would charge the uninsured more. You would think that they already had it bad enough since they probably can't afford insurance.

A few years ago I was laid off (downsized, LOL) from a company I had been with for 20 years. When I went to buy the same insurance that was provided as one of the benefits I was given a quote of $875 per month for me and my wife. And this was not a very good policy according to the folks I knew who used it. We never filed a major claim so I don't know how good it was.

I am retired now and have $5000 deductible which will pay 80% after the first $5K is picked up by me. The cost is $330 per month. This seems excessive to me but I feel it is necessary to carry it to avoid bankruptcy etc.. in case one of us should have an accident or whatever.

This whole industry is screwed up and I believe will eventually (soon) turn into a sociallized system. I say this even though my politics lean toward to Libertarian side.

[QUOTE]

Could you give any reliable source other than a socialist website or from Castro?

This is DEFINITELY a topic that begs for discussion.

There have been several good answers posted, but I haven't seen a few things mentioned. I'm going take a big risk and use lots of quotes. If I get a lot of negative feedback about it, I will promise never to do it again.


An employer-sponsored health plan is the result of negotiations between the employer and the insurance company. It works like this:

Employer: I've got $100/ per month to spend per employee. What can I get for that? (Note: This is why so many companies prefer to pay overtime, rather than hiring another employee and paying medical, dental, and vision insurance, vacation, sick time, maternity leave, family leave, holidays, workmen's comp, unemployment insurance, 401K/retirement, continuing education, etc.)

Insurance rep: You can have a choice of the doctors on our plan, a $20 drug deductible, but no liver transplants or Viagra.

Employer: What if I guarantee you $1000 employees on the plan you mentioned? Can I also get your enhanced benefit plan at a discount? So that I can get Viagra?

(This kind of bargaining can go on for days).

Anyway, an agreement is eventually signed. You can take it to the bank that the more doctors are on your plan, the more the company is paying the insurance company, and thus, the more the company is paying the doctors it contracts with. By the way, I know of no doctor whose annual compensation package approaches what the head of Traveler's Insurance made awhile back. His total compensation? $52 million. For one year.

I'll talk about this more later, but here's the crux of what you're asking:

The reason that prices vary is that hospitals contract with insurance companies, too. Under the terms that have been negotiated, the hospital may have agreed that setting a broken arm costs $175 with Blue Cross, but $200 with Aetna. Depends on how the negotiations went. It's important to note that the hospital has signed a contract saying that they will limit their charge to a specific amount for any patient covered by a particular insurance company.

However, if you stroll in without insurance, it's open season! They can charge whatever the hell they want, and they do! Remember that an emergency room is required by law to accept everybody, and not to inquire about their citizenship. Emergency rooms, therefore, have become the de facto family doctor for illegals. The last time I was in one, with a broken arm, I was waiting for the doctor to finish with (I'm guessing, from what I overheard) two illegal kids with head colds, and one bum with gonorrhea.

Basically, when they see you coming, they plan to make up for all the free medical care they're required to give away. I've often thought that if I didn't have insurance, I'd go to an emergency room and pretend to be from another country, so they'd have to treat me for free.

There is actually a cottage industry in which you can submit your bill to a company rep, and they will review it. Their fee is a percentage of the overcharges they find. How's that for confidence on their part?

I would advise you to look over your bill VERY carefully. Also, try to make sure that everything that was charged for was actually done, or dispensed. Billing for drugs that were not dispensed is extremely common.


You'll have to ask the trial lawyers that one. You know, the group that's the largest contributor to the Democratic party. Or maybe the union bosses. Ditto.


Of course they can! Insurance these days is the equivalent of whipping a piece of paper out of your pocket and saying, "Wait! I have a discount coupon!"

You won't see that while the insurance companies have lobbyists. And all that money.


I'd love to see the reasons you feel the two are similar. Price-fixing (for doctors) is illegal, but wage fixing seems to be very popular, at least to the people who post on TFP.

It's not. Canada, for example, establishes an amount that they will pay for the year. Although it's been a few years since I checked, the orthopedists used to max out around August, and they'd come to the US for the rest of the year, rather than working for free. So if you wanted to break a bone in Canada, you'd better do it prior to August. Also, a mammogram had about a year-long waiting list. Canada doesn't publicize how many of its citizens pay their own way, rather than waiting a year to find out if they've got breast cancer.

Then there's Russia. If you're in a hospital there, and you want clean sheets, you'd better grease the sheets guy. Same applies to a lot of other aspects of the hospitals.

You don't want to hear about the re-use of gloves, needles, and the like. And the non-sterile equipment that doesn't work.

Because they're paying for the people who pay nothing. I agree with you--paying for the free rides of others isn't any fun at all.

The issue of accurate record-keeping has already been discussed, so I'll just say that Cuba is a country that can't even get parts for cars, so I'd be leery of trusting that their hospital equipment is functional, or sterile.

Looks like you think some people should be contributing more money towards the medical expenses of the poor.

Now might not be the best time to suggest that Kutulu do so.

Not sure who you're referring to as the poster, but the airline industry was deregulated in 1978, under Jimmy Carter.

Actually that was part of it, but the whole is, I believe we need universal healthcare. Kutulu would not be in his situation if that were the case.

I see it this way:

1) we have an industry that's JOB is to better mankind through medicine.

2) That industry does so for a profit. (Fair enough, doctors deserve to make a good living)

3) Insurance companies run the industry to where they can dictate who gets what treatments, who gets what medicines, who pays what and in some cases who will live and who will die.

4) There are far too many without insurance and who cannot pay when they do get service, this affects the bottom line which increases medical prices, which increases insurance prices, and increases government spending on healthcare.

5) This means even more people cannot afford treatments that are needed. So even more people start getting emergency treatments (which is all that is legally deemed necessary to people without insurance).

6) This takes preventative medicine (regular checkups for example) out of the picture so that someone who may have a treatable illness gets sicker to the point they can no longer work

7) which increases more government payouts in disability

Does anyone see the vicious cycle? How can you argue against allowing men and women the basic right to medical treatment so that they may lead more productive lives?

Right now insurance companies call all the shots, that is wrong.

There is no true market for medicine because doctors are told what to charge by the insurance companies,

those that take non-insureds have to charge them an outrageous price, to cover losses from the insurance companies.

The only people making any money, making any profit are the insurance companies. And when we allow the most basic of human needs to be dictated to us by the bottom line numbers then we no longer can claim to be truly a "humane society" but rather a society driven by greed and willing to let those who are in need die.

Sorry but compassion is very much a needed part of humanity if human life is to adavnce.

I appologize if you took what I was saying as "money to the poor", if that was what you got out of what I said then my rant obviously did not make my true point known. Hopefully this clears things up.

Funny, it works pretty well over here. I keep reading about people actually coming to Sweden for surgery and treatment but I guess thats only because they can't afford to go to the US, right?

Sweden is known for allowing new risky procedures quicker than its allowed in the US. A lot of US funded research is done in Sweden for this very reason. Sweden has a very genetically similar population, with a socialized system which allows easy patient tracking, and rules which let doctors do unnecessary and potentially harmful procedures on humans which are not allowed in the US.

there you go connyosis,

your system sucks, it's dangerous, and we pay for it! :D

You're all essentially the same and the government's got you tracked.
Bet you didn't know that about your country's medical system.

Very few do. There is a very good growth study done in Sweden where they put metalic screws in childrens (many children) heads in many locations and then X-rayed them every year to see how the craiofacial complex grows. I had to basicly learn it by heart, and I'm glad it wasn't my kid with the screws in his head and extra radiation.

I'm confused. Are you actually charging that this "very good growth study" was done unethically? Or are you just trying to obfuscate the issue?

We do know that you wouldn't have any qualms about injecting depleted uranium into your children because that stuff is harmless, right Ustwo?

In Canada, health care is under provincial juristiction, not Federal. Every province offers socialized care. Speaking of Canada as one body isn't accurate.

Second, these max incomes are hit by less than 1% of specialists.

Strangely, Canadian cancer survival rates are higher than the US.

Canada does worse on heart attacks.

First of all, give me some sources about this "screws in the heads" study you're talking about. When did this take place, how many children was involved? I doubt this has been done in the last 50 years or so, and at that time the US was just as "barbaric".
What kind of rules give doctors powers to to unnecessary procedures? I have never heard of anything like that. Some more info on that too please.

You know, allowing "risky" procedures is kind of different from actually performing them. In Sweden you have a choice: Choose this procedure which is not as tested, or that procedure which has been performed for a longer time. You're making it sound like doctors do not inform patients about the risks of whatever procedure they are going to have, which is not true at all.

Swedish doctors are known to be very good, regardless of what you are trying to make them sound like. My american girlfriend and her mother (Who is a doctor) has lived in the US, Canada and Sweden and by far prefers the swedish health care compared to the other countries, and I have to say I believe them a little more than you, since I gather you have no experience of our system at all.

You saying that people go to the US for treatment is also kind of weird, since what I have heard (From my girlfriends mom among others) americans often go to Europe for these "risky" treatments you are talking about.

Also, just so you all know, should you not want to use the socialised wellcare system in Sweden, you don't have to. We have private doctors and private hospitals as well, it's all up to you which you prefer.

This is one of the implant studies, there were more. Another study I saw done in the 90's when I was in school was giving children dental caries on purpose on permanent teeth that were slated for extraction. This again would not be allowed in the US. Likewise Sweden was very usefull in the testing of titanium implants (unrelated to the growth study).

If you want to think American's are flocking to European health care, its your right of course. Sweden does have fine doctors if you are willing to pay on the private side.

Let me see, 1968. That was about the same year my girlfriends grandfather had electo shock therapy in the US. Because we all know electricity into the brain is the way to cure the demons of schizophrenia.

Where are you finding all these inhumane "studies" that swedes have supposedly performed on children? I myself can only remember the time men in white coats came to my class, took me to the school nurse's office and injected caries into EVERY SINGLE ONE of my teeth, after which I had to stand in line for 6 hours to get an Advil. I didn't even get a lollipop.

Now, how is testing titanium implants a bad thing? Do you actually think people were forced to have them implanted? Having the choice to try something new out is in my book a good thing, then again I'm not american.

To me, it seems like the point you're trying to make is that american doctors are the best in the world and that citizens of any other country, be it a rich euopean country or a third world one, will nonetheless receive inadicuate care if not treated by an american physician. If indeed this is your view point, it is the kind of statement that makes other americans with a more wordly outlook embarassed to be an american.

How do you know where to find a good doctor in Sweden? Have you ever been to one, private or otherwise?

Don't forget the US had labotomies, and how many meds in the last few years clearing the FDA that have to be taken off because they CREATE health problems?

Conny, you are right there are great doctors I am sure in every country.

Of course with our educational system in the dumper I don't see the US producing many great doctors soon. Of course the doctors we will have will be unaffordable as will insurance as the # of doctors drops the demand goes up as will the price.

The above is the only part of your post I disagree with (partially). Lawyers are a large part of the problem too. Actually, so are incompetent doctors, because they make it easy for lawyers to extract huge sums from insurance companies, thereby increasing the costs for everyone.

As an aside, I couldn't understand anyone supporting Edwards, since he basically screwed over every OB/GYN in his state, in order to make himself a multimillionaire. It makes me wonder if Kutulu voted for him.

Anyway, no matter what the current definition of "rich" is, there will never be enough of the "rich" to pay the medical expenses of the non-rich. A program such as that would certainly act as a magnet for illegal immigration, too.

However, I wonder why benefits must always be dispensed with no strings attached. For example, a person could get government assistance for a health problem, but after doing so, a payroll deduction could be started, at a percentage of income. Same for a lot of the other government assistance programs.

It works for school loans, and it would sure go a long way toward financing the system.

I'm quite happy paying twice as much for my preferred insurance plan, seeing as the doctor assigned to me when my expenses were paid for by Social Security disability benefits had obviously learned English fairly recently, and had an office in an area that I would like to avoid even driving through after dark.

I'm quite happy with my current physician, who takes as much time as necessary to talk to me about whatever the current problem is, and whose office is less than 10 minutes from my house.

I've made up my mind on the issue of socialized versus private healthcare.

Well I'm happy for you. You had a choice and you're happy with it. Same thing here in Sweden. You can use the doctors at your local hospital and not pay anything for it. (Well that's not totally true, for my last surgery I paid 150 Swedish crowns, which would be around 20 dollars.) However you also have the choice of going to a private doctor if that makes you feel better and you can afford it.

Thing is, socialized wellfare in Sweden works. I'm not saying it's a perfect system or anything, but it seems to me a lot of people here disregard it just because they think socialized means Russia och Cuba. It does not necessarily do that, and certainly not in this case.
I don't mind paying higher taxes when I get free (And good) healthcare for it, but I also understand that other people might not share my opinion and I respect that.

connyosis: There's nothing wrong, in theory, with a socialized medical system. It would work to bring health care to everyone, undoubtedly. The problem with a mandated, socialized helath care system is that it disqualifies excellence in favor of inclusion. For instance, lets say you know an oncologist, who's really good at getting tumors. In a free enterprise system, that doctor can rise to emminience, garner money for research, develop new treatments, or guide the health care market to better treat people. Unfortunately, the cost of that treatment is higher, but that's because that doctor's better. It's the same reason a Porsche is more expensive than a Ford. One is hand made in Stuttgart by expert craftsmen, one's mass made in Detroit by assembly line workers.
Under a socialized system, that same oncologist wouldn't be able to excell, since the dictates of what that docutor could and couldn't do would be mandated by the governing body that ran the health department for the country. If they tried anything out of mandate, they'd be brought up on charges, fined, and probably fired for doing what was right, as opposed to what was mandated by the federally approved treatment plan.
The best thing you can hope for, in a perfect world, is a sort of split between the two. On the one hand, you have the federally subsidzed health care, that takes care of everyone, and on the other hand, you have the private practice, that allows for the innovations to improve the first system in the long run. But every time I read what I just wrote there, I keep coming back to the phrase "tying to have your cake and eat it too", so I don't know if any health care system can survive like that. That, and, as a semi-professional cynic, I've seen too many people try and abuse help when it was offered to them to think that you could expect everyone to use the system properly.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, do you mean that doctors working under a socialized system wont get money for research? If this is what you mean than that's totally wrong. For instance 8 swedish doctors have gotten the Nobel prize in medical research, five of these come from "Karolinska Institutet" which is not a private hospital, but one of Europe's largest research hospitals. (http://info.ki.se/index_en.html)

If I go to my local clinic with a sore throat a doctor there will look at it. Now he may be a really good doctor or he maybe an ok doctor, and for this check up I will pay about 15 dollars. When it comes to extreme surgery or treatments you don't go to your local clinic. For example, I was born in a medium sized town. The doctors on this local hospital realized that I needed advanced surgery that could not be performed there,and I was flown to Karolinska. For this my parents paid the equivalent of 20 dollars.

What I'm trying to say that is even though we have a socialized system, we are not restricted to our local hospital. If I for instance got cancer, I could ask to be treated at Karolinska and that would be just fine. No higher costs for me compared to choosing a hospital closer to where I live.
I'm also trying to point out that being a private doctor does not in any way mean you are a better doctor which seems to be what a lot of people here think...

Maybe this is worth reviving the thread
 

Help may be on the way. I just found out about this (it's my home town).

If you search for other articles on this situation, you'll see that the hospital sued this whistleblower.

Link

http://www.hospitalpricegouging.org/update1_092304.html

sob has it right. The uninsured are the ones subsidizing the non payers. we basically have universal health care in the us, in the sense that anyone that needs treatment gets it, regardless of their ability to pay for it. look at the bums and illegals in the emergency rooms...

And conny, I think you've chased ustwo away. You seem to be reading posts as you want them to read, and not how they are written.

Please, tell me where I was wrong. Seems to me that Ustwo was stating that healthcare cannot be good unless it is private, that socialized healthcare everywhere is just as bad as in Russia. Well guess what? It isn't true.
I'm not saying that private healthcare is bad, not at all. If people are willing to pay, let them.
Ustwo also brought up a lot of things that has NOTHING to do with which system a country uses. How has socialized healthcare anything to do with what procedures are permitted for instance?

I'm not sure I interpreted this correctly, so I hope I'm not answering a question you didn't ask.

It is my understanding (and I'm going on anecdotal evidence) that there are very strict parameters for receiving care under a socialized system.

For example: Over 60? No heart transplant for you. Liver transplant? No, we've defined that to be "experimental."

Dental implants? No, this piece of plastic you cram in your mouth is good enough for you.

New hip? No, you're 70. Here, use this cane.

And at least in the US, anyone who can pay for something better arouses cries of "Discrimination against the poor" because the poor can't pay for the more ideal treatment.

Well, in Sweden we do not have those limits. If you need a new hip, heart, liver or whatever you can get it, no matter if you're 17 or 70. If you cannot get a transplant in the US because you are too old, I can understand socialized healthcare getting a bad rep, but understand (Not directed directly to you) that this isn't the case all over the world.

Also, this is not what Ustwo was talking about. He brought up the fact that "risky" procedures that are not allowed in the US are allowed in Sweden, and according to him this was a bad thing! Something being allowed is NOT the same thing as it being the default treatment, it is however a choice the patient has. Try the old tested treatment, or the newer, potetially risky but also potentially more effective one.
Now, what allowing these "risky" treatments has to do with having a socialized healthcare system is beyond me, but maybe someone else could explain?

I also think it is ridiculous that people bitch at people that can afford private doctors. If you can afford it and want it, you should be able to, but I also think it is a right that if you cannot afford it, you should still be able to recieve good healthcare.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, so please don't be offended by this question, which admittedly has a hard edge:

Does Sweden provide health care for anyone in the world who can sneak into the country? If so, I predict long-term illegal immigration into your country.

That's where we have a disagreement, although it's more a matter of degree than principle.

What I consider I have a RIGHT to is life, liberty, .... yada yada. While I know some impoverished people that I like very much, I still have a hard time with saying that they have a right to the labor of others, whether it be doctors, or taxpayers who are footing their bills.

I become even more hard-hearted when a person announces he has a right to a liver transplant at the expense of others, if he has destroyed his own through the use of recreational drugs or alcohol.

It's going to take a really great post from you to change my mind on that one.

I tend to agree with your logic, but the problem is in the details of implementing such a policy. Where would we draw the line. Do we deny coverage to all risky lifestyles? As an example, do we deny benefits to people who sit all day in front of a computer and get no exercise? Do we deny benefits to parents who knowingly pass on their bad genes to their offspring?

If we are all going to have to pay for it, then I think everyone should be covered. IMO, if we are going to exclude some people then we would be going down a slippery slope.

Don't worry, I'm not offended. No, of course not. I'm talking about healthcare for swedish citizens.

So...if you just happens to be poor, tough shit. Is that what you're saying?
If you get sick but cannot pay for good healthcare then you're on your own? Not a very nice attitude. Why are these people poor? Just being lazy or having bad luck in life?
I can see where this is coming from, if I make money on my own I want to keep them too. It's not like I enjoy paying taxes, but I think it's worth it for making sure no one goes without proper healthcare, education and so on.
I also do not like the thought of someone wasting my tax money because he/she has been smoking her entire life and now has lung cancer, but these people are a minority to the rest benefitting from them.