Cost of a tetanus shot in the US
-
gleat wrote:
Does anyone else think there's something broken with this system?
Obama, I heard.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.peterchen wrote:
Obama, I heard.
Beat me to it.
-
A few weeks back I had a close personal encounter with centrifugal physics when I swung my tennis racquet rather unnecessarily hard and found it not only completely missing the ball but also hurtling straight for my face side-on. A resounding thwack later I found myself spitting pieces of one of my teeth out. As it turned out I had broken one of my front teeth clean in half. Friends insisted that I go to the ER and go I did. They took one look at it and said, well, you've got to go see a dentist. After 1.5 hours of thumb twiddling they gave me a tetanus shot and sent me on my way after depriving me of $100. I walked away thinking, "$100 for a tetanus shot?! Outrageous!". Fast forward a week or two when I find myself staring at a bill in the mail in disbelief. Cost of the treatment is given as $1,087.20 :omg:. I am thinking, this is surely a typo! I log on to the insurance website to see what was submitted for the claim and there I find another claim for $294 apart from the other thousand. The hospital submitted a claim for $1,381.20 and the insurance company actually paid $664.00. Add the $100 I paid and you arrive at a grand total of $764 for one measly injection! While my personal liability was only $100, I find the idea that the hospital thought that the service was worth $1,481.20 a bit mind-boggling. When I did a little googling about this, I found articles where the rationale appears to be that ERs run 24/7 all 365 days of the year and are required by law to treat all patients regardless of whether they have insurance or not and that a good chunk of the service they provide goes uncompensated and are therefore forced to distribute that cost among other patients who do happen to be insured. I am not sure that I find that completely convincing. Does anyone else think there's something broken with this system?
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
-
gleat wrote:
Does anyone else think there's something broken with this system?
Obama, I heard.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.Far as I know, Obama hasn't actually changed anything yet. He's trying to, but he's still fighting with Congress to get something done.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Here it is illegal to not be insured. Wouldn't that help? Then the hospital wouldn't have to "redistribute" the costs.
If Obama has his way that's probably what will happen in the US too. One of the proposals in the health reform bill apparently is to impose tax penalties on people who remain uninsured. I am sure there will be some sensible caveat to that but yeah, that seems to be the general idea.
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
-
gleat wrote:
Does anyone else think there's something broken with this system?
Obama, I heard.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.Yeah. Well, he seems to be trying at least.
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
-
Here it is illegal to not be insured. Wouldn't that help? Then the hospital wouldn't have to "redistribute" the costs.
-
If Obama has his way that's probably what will happen in the US too. One of the proposals in the health reform bill apparently is to impose tax penalties on people who remain uninsured. I am sure there will be some sensible caveat to that but yeah, that seems to be the general idea.
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
-
Not forgetting, of course, that if that's an individual policy it'll cover you up to but not including the moment you're sick or injured.
062142174041062102
-
Well if that's all, I don't get why half the country is rioting..? :confused: Or do they just misunderstand?
harold aptroot wrote:
Or do they just misunderstand?
Yes. There has been so much purposeful mis-information about this it's ridiculous. Personally I don't think this has a chance in hell of passing given the way things are currently going. Which is really too bad because there are some fundamental issues that need to be dealt with, and all these guys are doing is just dithering and passing the buck.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
gleat wrote:
Does anyone else think there's something broken with this system?
Obama, I heard.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server.We don't have those problems in Canada, because health care is free. I can't imagine why people would trust for-profit corporations to run critical services such as health care? Obama seems to get it. Every 1st world country except USA seems to get it. Not to turn this into a heavy political debate, but from a distance, it seems quite unintelligent that people are fighting him on it.
-
Well if that's all, I don't get why half the country is rioting..? :confused: Or do they just misunderstand?
People have their reasons. Many perceive the bill as representing government take-over of health care and consequently a step towards socialism! The "public option" clause which allows the government to be one of the choices John Q. Public will have when selecting an insurance provider has raised the hackles of many big private insurance companies as they feel they could never compete with a government option which is backed by tax payers. Add to that the muscle-flexing by the lobbyists ($1.4 million[^] are being spent on average every single day by lobbyists apparently to have their cause heard on the floor) and you have what you see going on!
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
-
A few weeks back I had a close personal encounter with centrifugal physics when I swung my tennis racquet rather unnecessarily hard and found it not only completely missing the ball but also hurtling straight for my face side-on. A resounding thwack later I found myself spitting pieces of one of my teeth out. As it turned out I had broken one of my front teeth clean in half. Friends insisted that I go to the ER and go I did. They took one look at it and said, well, you've got to go see a dentist. After 1.5 hours of thumb twiddling they gave me a tetanus shot and sent me on my way after depriving me of $100. I walked away thinking, "$100 for a tetanus shot?! Outrageous!". Fast forward a week or two when I find myself staring at a bill in the mail in disbelief. Cost of the treatment is given as $1,087.20 :omg:. I am thinking, this is surely a typo! I log on to the insurance website to see what was submitted for the claim and there I find another claim for $294 apart from the other thousand. The hospital submitted a claim for $1,381.20 and the insurance company actually paid $664.00. Add the $100 I paid and you arrive at a grand total of $764 for one measly injection! While my personal liability was only $100, I find the idea that the hospital thought that the service was worth $1,481.20 a bit mind-boggling. When I did a little googling about this, I found articles where the rationale appears to be that ERs run 24/7 all 365 days of the year and are required by law to treat all patients regardless of whether they have insurance or not and that a good chunk of the service they provide goes uncompensated and are therefore forced to distribute that cost among other patients who do happen to be insured. I am not sure that I find that completely convincing. Does anyone else think there's something broken with this system?
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
You aren't being charged for the tetanus shot, but the visit to the ER. The $1481 is part of the charade medical providers go through so that they can write of the difference between it and what the insurance company actually pays, so they can whine about how they are being ripped off and so they can get some money from the government which forces them to accept all patients. (Incidentally, only about 13% of ER patients have no insurance or aren't paying for themselves at the busiest hospitals. Where I live, I doubt it's more than 5%.) A tetanus shot by itself isn't much. The itemized bill will show that. Had you gone to a doctor office (or an extended care facility) rather than ER, your costs would have been much lower. BTW, the multiple claims are due to the bizarre way hospitals bill. For various reasons mostly to do with liability insurance, doctors usually bill separate from the hospital. One thing that's broken is not having more care clinics where you can get basic medical care without resorting to more expensive facilities. Many Walmarts have these. In my area, both the main hospital monopoly and the teaching university have these, though they are still too expensive for really basic care (i.e. not having broken bones set or being stitched up.)
-
People have their reasons. Many perceive the bill as representing government take-over of health care and consequently a step towards socialism! The "public option" clause which allows the government to be one of the choices John Q. Public will have when selecting an insurance provider has raised the hackles of many big private insurance companies as they feel they could never compete with a government option which is backed by tax payers. Add to that the muscle-flexing by the lobbyists ($1.4 million[^] are being spent on average every single day by lobbyists apparently to have their cause heard on the floor) and you have what you see going on!
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
Add to that that Group coverage is wide spread and highly regulated which means as a consequence most people are happy with it. If that changes the dynamic will change, which may take a few more years of rampant health inflation. Small companies find it difficult now, within a few years even professionals may find themselves paying 25% of their pay check or going without.
062142174041062102
-
We don't have those problems in Canada, because health care is free. I can't imagine why people would trust for-profit corporations to run critical services such as health care? Obama seems to get it. Every 1st world country except USA seems to get it. Not to turn this into a heavy political debate, but from a distance, it seems quite unintelligent that people are fighting him on it.
Obama DOESN'T get it. To say otherwise are fighting words. Take it to the lounge. There are very good reasons to oppose socialization of medicine; ask Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams about it--you know, the one who just came to the states for medical care. BTW, while US spends more per GDP on health care, costs are rising as fast in Canada and Europe as in the US. Come back to me when your taxes are raised and benefits cut (and/or Canada stops the charade of making private health insurance illegal.)
-
Add to that that Group coverage is wide spread and highly regulated which means as a consequence most people are happy with it. If that changes the dynamic will change, which may take a few more years of rampant health inflation. Small companies find it difficult now, within a few years even professionals may find themselves paying 25% of their pay check or going without.
062142174041062102
And that's what people don't seem to understand. Doing nothing here isn't an option. If you like you current coverage, if the government does nothing, it will keep getting more and more expensive until you lose it anyway. So all the wailing about a government take-over doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the current system is unsustainable.
-
People have their reasons. Many perceive the bill as representing government take-over of health care and consequently a step towards socialism! The "public option" clause which allows the government to be one of the choices John Q. Public will have when selecting an insurance provider has raised the hackles of many big private insurance companies as they feel they could never compete with a government option which is backed by tax payers. Add to that the muscle-flexing by the lobbyists ($1.4 million[^] are being spent on average every single day by lobbyists apparently to have their cause heard on the floor) and you have what you see going on!
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
gleat wrote:
Many perceive the bill as representing government take-over of health care and consequently a step towards socialism!
Especially people who know socialism only from the scaremonger posters.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | µLaunch - program launcher for server core and hyper-v server. -
We don't have those problems in Canada, because health care is free. I can't imagine why people would trust for-profit corporations to run critical services such as health care? Obama seems to get it. Every 1st world country except USA seems to get it. Not to turn this into a heavy political debate, but from a distance, it seems quite unintelligent that people are fighting him on it.
Health care systems are never free, the method or payment varies from country to country and in Canada's case payment is remitted from the public purse through various programs, which means it is funded by taxation. There do seem to be bizzare beliefs here in the US however that only two systems exist in the world, either a completely free market private yet caring and world beating system or complete soviet style state control. The earlier doesn't exist here, and the latter hasn't actually been considered of course.
062142174041062102
-
Obama DOESN'T get it. To say otherwise are fighting words. Take it to the lounge. There are very good reasons to oppose socialization of medicine; ask Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams about it--you know, the one who just came to the states for medical care. BTW, while US spends more per GDP on health care, costs are rising as fast in Canada and Europe as in the US. Come back to me when your taxes are raised and benefits cut (and/or Canada stops the charade of making private health insurance illegal.)
You are implying Danny went to the US due to inadequate services, and that is inaccurate. I happen to be from Newfoundland and Labrador, so I know that story well. Danny could have received the surgery here for free. However, he consulted with Canadian doctors who told him the most experienced people are in Miami, so that's where he went. In Canada we get free health service, plus the benefit of buying whatever cutting edge services or higher levels of experience the US has to offer, if one can afford it. Danny can. Was that necessary? Certainly not, but most of us would take advantage of the best surgeons if money wasn't an obstacle.
-
You are implying Danny went to the US due to inadequate services, and that is inaccurate. I happen to be from Newfoundland and Labrador, so I know that story well. Danny could have received the surgery here for free. However, he consulted with Canadian doctors who told him the most experienced people are in Miami, so that's where he went. In Canada we get free health service, plus the benefit of buying whatever cutting edge services or higher levels of experience the US has to offer, if one can afford it. Danny can. Was that necessary? Certainly not, but most of us would take advantage of the best surgeons if money wasn't an obstacle.
Talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. By definition, for him, the Canadian services were inadequate.
zievo wrote:
plus the benefit of buying whatever cutting edge services or higher levels of experience the US has to offer
Do you even comprehend the hypocrisy of that statement? If the US implements Canadian style health care, you won't have any fall back. To whit, not many Americans (or any nationality) are traveling to Canada for their vaunted health care expertise.
zievo wrote:
In Canada we get free health service,
No you don't, you pay higher taxes for that benefit. Now, it may be worth it, maybe not, but it isn't free.