Cost of a tetanus shot in the US
-
Wjousts wrote:
Doing nothing here isn't an option.
Yes it is and not a bad one. Economic reality is that health care will never become unaffordable. Government acting won't bring down costs without cutting benefits because government isn't run on magic fairy dust. I'm continually surprised that people think politicians have the answers. Since when? These are the same idiots that came up with the current tax code.
-
Well, the only reason I went was because my tennis friends thought it was a good idea and it was past 9 PM. I wasn't experiencing pain and was told that that's probably because of the adrenalin and that once that goes down I'd be in excruciating pain and will probably need some prescription medication for that. Well, as it turned out the only time I felt any pain was after the dentist did a root canal 3 days later and that was nothing more than mild annoying pain. Also, it wasn't "chipped" teeth - half of it was just gone and after the dentist got done with his grinding there's almost no tooth left! Oh well, that's that!
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
For future reference many insurance companies have a 24/7 phone line you can use to ask questions. You and they will be much happier if when in doubt you ask "do I need to go to the ER for this, or can it wait until morning" the next time.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Economic reality is that health care will never become unaffordable.
NEWS FLASH!!!! Health care is already unaffordable for many, many Americans. So that kinda puts a big hole in your whole theory.
Wjousts wrote:
Health care is already unaffordable for many, many Americans. So that kinda puts a big hole in your whole theory.
Not really. I lived for almost seven years without health insurance. Paid for several ER visits, had a cat scan and a baby during that time. The reality is that most people not on insurance choose to do so because they don't need it. Nobody is going without basic health care in this country. Moreover, economic reality is what it is. If health care can't be afforded by ANYONE, the medical system cease to exist, but the demand would not, so something would take its place. There would be no doctors, no hospitals, nothing. But that won't happen. We'll adjust. We'll stop doing unnecessary and marginally effective medical procedures. Oddly enough, it is the heavy hand of government regulation that gets in the way of that. Where I live, mid-wives are legal--our last child was born with one and my wife and I can't recommend the experience enough--but in many areas they are not.
-
Well, the only reason I went was because my tennis friends thought it was a good idea and it was past 9 PM. I wasn't experiencing pain and was told that that's probably because of the adrenalin and that once that goes down I'd be in excruciating pain and will probably need some prescription medication for that. Well, as it turned out the only time I felt any pain was after the dentist did a root canal 3 days later and that was nothing more than mild annoying pain. Also, it wasn't "chipped" teeth - half of it was just gone and after the dentist got done with his grinding there's almost no tooth left! Oh well, that's that!
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
gleat wrote:
that that's probably because of the adrenalin and that once that goes down I'd be in excruciating pain
I wonder if that's true at all. When I shattered my front tooth in an unfortunate Nerf basketball debacle, I didn't feel any pain (except when drinking, but I could place the liquid to avoid the pain). I was told the same thing (adrenalin was suppressing the pain), but I was fine for the 2 weeks it took to get to the dentist and have the tooth extracted.
-
Pay cash then file a reimbursement form with your insurance. Significantly cheaper. Plus, don't go to the emergency room for non-emergencies. Urgent care would have been more appropriate for your injury (and dentist from life experience). Everyone with an ingrown toe nail goes to the emergency room. Seems like a bigger problem than the emergency room having to justify it's fee. Lets see: 4 nurses, 1 doctor, a triage nurse, a bed and an exam, and a multi-million dollar state of the art facility, all for $1,000 dollars? Sounds like a steal!
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
Yeah, they ought to have the receptionist refer non-emergency patients to regular doctors. I've visited the emergency room before simply because I didn't understand the difference between a GP and the emergency room (to me, a doctor was a doctor and a hospital was a hospital).
-
Wjousts wrote:
Health care is already unaffordable for many, many Americans. So that kinda puts a big hole in your whole theory.
Not really. I lived for almost seven years without health insurance. Paid for several ER visits, had a cat scan and a baby during that time. The reality is that most people not on insurance choose to do so because they don't need it. Nobody is going without basic health care in this country. Moreover, economic reality is what it is. If health care can't be afforded by ANYONE, the medical system cease to exist, but the demand would not, so something would take its place. There would be no doctors, no hospitals, nothing. But that won't happen. We'll adjust. We'll stop doing unnecessary and marginally effective medical procedures. Oddly enough, it is the heavy hand of government regulation that gets in the way of that. Where I live, mid-wives are legal--our last child was born with one and my wife and I can't recommend the experience enough--but in many areas they are not.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Nobody is going without basic health care in this country.
That's just an utterly ignorant statement. I personally know people who go without basic health care because it would mean that they lose their houses. Their mortgage is currently lower than even the cheapest rents ($600/mo), so they would probably be homeless if they need any kind of emergency health care.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Nobody is going without basic health care in this country.
That's just an utterly ignorant statement. I personally know people who go without basic health care because it would mean that they lose their houses. Their mortgage is currently lower than even the cheapest rents ($600/mo), so they would probably be homeless if they need any kind of emergency health care.
Scott Serl wrote:
I personally know people who go without basic health care because it would mean that they lose their houses.
Bullshit. You can get basic health care at many places. I did it when I was self-employed and had almost no money. Walmart has clinics. Most counties have health clinics as well. For kids, there is the SCHIP program. Many adults can qualify for Medicaid and WIC. By law, Emergency Rooms have to treat you in most (all?) states. Whether you have to pay some or the whole amount often depends on your income. When I was self-employed and unemployed, I paid the whole amount more than once (sometimes in the thousands of dollars) though not always right there. Most hospitals and doctors will set up payment plans. Also, you are changing the argument. I said BASIC HEALTH CARE. Not advanced health care, though you can still get pretty damn advanced care. I got a CAT scan several years back paid out-of-pocket (which showed gallstones) when I was unemployed. The hospital offered to set up a payment plan; I put it on a credit card (my rates at the time were less.) A colleague just paid for one out-of-pocket (it wasn't medically necessary, but he wanted if for his own peace of mind so did it.) My two oldest kids got most of the immunizations at various City/County health departments. Do the people you know go without fixing their car? How about going without cable TV or Satellite TV? Do they eat out? Go to movies? Have they ever spent a week eating only graham crackers and saltines so they could buy food for their one year old daughter? I have. I know exactly what it's like to not have insurance and to have a medical emergency. I know what it's like to not have insurance and to find a way to pay for a child birth (we used mid-wives.) I also know what it's like to have insurance and to hit my high yearly deductible in one visit to the hospital since I just did that two months ago. Fortunately, I do a radical thing called saving my money for such events.
-
Scott Serl wrote:
I personally know people who go without basic health care because it would mean that they lose their houses.
Bullshit. You can get basic health care at many places. I did it when I was self-employed and had almost no money. Walmart has clinics. Most counties have health clinics as well. For kids, there is the SCHIP program. Many adults can qualify for Medicaid and WIC. By law, Emergency Rooms have to treat you in most (all?) states. Whether you have to pay some or the whole amount often depends on your income. When I was self-employed and unemployed, I paid the whole amount more than once (sometimes in the thousands of dollars) though not always right there. Most hospitals and doctors will set up payment plans. Also, you are changing the argument. I said BASIC HEALTH CARE. Not advanced health care, though you can still get pretty damn advanced care. I got a CAT scan several years back paid out-of-pocket (which showed gallstones) when I was unemployed. The hospital offered to set up a payment plan; I put it on a credit card (my rates at the time were less.) A colleague just paid for one out-of-pocket (it wasn't medically necessary, but he wanted if for his own peace of mind so did it.) My two oldest kids got most of the immunizations at various City/County health departments. Do the people you know go without fixing their car? How about going without cable TV or Satellite TV? Do they eat out? Go to movies? Have they ever spent a week eating only graham crackers and saltines so they could buy food for their one year old daughter? I have. I know exactly what it's like to not have insurance and to have a medical emergency. I know what it's like to not have insurance and to find a way to pay for a child birth (we used mid-wives.) I also know what it's like to have insurance and to hit my high yearly deductible in one visit to the hospital since I just did that two months ago. Fortunately, I do a radical thing called saving my money for such events.
Some of my friends don't make more than $100/month more than their rent, which must go towards food/phone/utilities. No they don't have cable, or eat out, or even have a cell phone. Food is often given to them by friends or church, and friends also fix their car when broken. Subsidised phone service is ~$7/month, but utilities are a killer at ~$50/month (and that is with all heat off, except to take the chill off after dinner and in the morning). They even turn off appliances (like the Microwave) which take small amounts of electricity even when not in use. Gas for commuting is also getting bad again at ~$3.00/gallon; it can easily cost over $30/month for a fuel efficient car. There is not a lot of opportunity for saving.
-
Some of my friends don't make more than $100/month more than their rent, which must go towards food/phone/utilities. No they don't have cable, or eat out, or even have a cell phone. Food is often given to them by friends or church, and friends also fix their car when broken. Subsidised phone service is ~$7/month, but utilities are a killer at ~$50/month (and that is with all heat off, except to take the chill off after dinner and in the morning). They even turn off appliances (like the Microwave) which take small amounts of electricity even when not in use. Gas for commuting is also getting bad again at ~$3.00/gallon; it can easily cost over $30/month for a fuel efficient car. There is not a lot of opportunity for saving.
Nice way to change the argument; first they're buying, now they're renting. Besides, at those income levels they would qualify for several programs. But I don't see what health care they aren't getting? What is it? What broken legs aren't being fixed or strep throat not being diagnosed? They having trouble buying insulin? Beyond that, your friends sound like they need to go to college and/or work multiple jobs. Perhaps they could move to a more cost effective area. There are so many options out there. If my lazy ass 19-year-old son can get a job that pays $150 a week, anybody can. (Even working one full time job, you can make about $1150 a month on minimum wage. Two people sharing rent can pull in $2300. Work a second job and that goes up. Or forget the second job and go to, say, nursing or another trade school; they'll qualify for grants and loans.) Beyond that, there is plenty of room for saving. Even if it's a little, you can save if you have the discipline. Open an online account at ING and put just $10 a paycheck into it. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it adds up. BTW, there census jobs still open. They pay up to $13 an hour in my area. There's also the Post Office or the military (if the people are still young.) Or you can be like my beyond lazy brother-in-law and never work at all and become a welfare leech (and now disability leech due to his wife's illnesses.)
-
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[^] --
-
Welcome to the backwards bizzaro world of the collectivist, where private monopolies are bad, but monopolies enforced at the point of a gun, are just great! Canadians who profess that they're getting "better" health care with a nationalized health system are not paying attention. Do you realize that MRI waiting times are shorter for DOGS in Canada than they are for humans? Why is that? To the OP: the reason that the cost of an individual procedure is so high in the US is threefold: 1. The baby boom - the largest segment of our population is approaching the age where they need more and more medical care. More demand equals higher prices, until the supply catches up. Health care supply (in terms of doctors and nurses) can take almost two decades to ramp up. 2. More and more distortion of the market by government subsidies. IIRC, around 42% of health care dollars come from public sources. Each government subsidy puts me, the consumer, in the unfortunate position of competing against an infinite supply of taxpayer money for a doctor's care. (What would happen to the price of Apples if uncle Obama furnished 30% of families with a voucher that allowed them to get reimbursed for the Apples they buy?) 3. The fallacy of insurance. Insurance, like all collectivist systems, separates the consumer from the cost of the supply or good being bought, so there is less incentive for the consumer to shop around - hence, no consumer-enforced price control. (Who cares how much an x-ray costs? The cost to me is always $100 no matter where I go.) There are other more minor factors too: many illegals and low-income families go to emergency room for all care, then don't even try to pay the bill - the hospital has to pad your bill to recoup those costs; violence in America is a contributor; tort lawsuits; etc. Eric
-
Welcome to the backwards bizzaro world of the collectivist, where private monopolies are bad, but monopolies enforced at the point of a gun, are just great! Canadians who profess that they're getting "better" health care with a nationalized health system are not paying attention. Do you realize that MRI waiting times are shorter for DOGS in Canada than they are for humans? Why is that? To the OP: the reason that the cost of an individual procedure is so high in the US is threefold: 1. The baby boom - the largest segment of our population is approaching the age where they need more and more medical care. More demand equals higher prices, until the supply catches up. Health care supply (in terms of doctors and nurses) can take almost two decades to ramp up. 2. More and more distortion of the market by government subsidies. IIRC, around 42% of health care dollars come from public sources. Each government subsidy puts me, the consumer, in the unfortunate position of competing against an infinite supply of taxpayer money for a doctor's care. (What would happen to the price of Apples if uncle Obama furnished 30% of families with a voucher that allowed them to get reimbursed for the Apples they buy?) 3. The fallacy of insurance. Insurance, like all collectivist systems, separates the consumer from the cost of the supply or good being bought, so there is less incentive for the consumer to shop around - hence, no consumer-enforced price control. (Who cares how much an x-ray costs? The cost to me is always $100 no matter where I go.) There are other more minor factors too: many illegals and low-income families go to emergency room for all care, then don't even try to pay the bill - the hospital has to pad your bill to recoup those costs; violence in America is a contributor; tort lawsuits; etc. Eric
Hired Mind wrote:
Welcome to the backwards bizzaro world of the collectivist, where private monopolies are bad, but monopolies enforced at the point of a gun, are just great!
In Canada, there is no monopoly. Health services are provided by a conglomerate of sources, many are private companies/hospitals/doctors, and the govt. just pays for it all using tax dollars, while also regulating prices. The biggest fear of monopolies is price fixing, and since the govt. foots the bill here, that isn't a concern.
Hired Mind wrote:
Canadians who profess that they're getting "better" health care with a nationalized health system are not paying attention. Do you realize that MRI waiting times are shorter for DOGS in Canada than they are for humans? Why is that?
You imply there is a direct link between a nationalized health system and long wait times, but that is in accurate. Your point 1 about baby boomers is happening here too, except they all get the health services they need instead of just the ones with insurance. That is one of the reasons we have a shortage of health care professionals, and as such some wait lines like MRI are long. That's a cherry picked item though, and most services aren't like that. Fixing it is the focus, and that will happen soon. I personally know 4 people who left their jobs to become doctors or nurses because of the shortage. The money is there to be had, thus an influx of resources are on their way.
-
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[^] --
Going to the emergency room was your mistake. You should've waited and just seen a dentist or your normal doctor. Never go to the emergency room unless you're about to die. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time and money. I know that sounds ridiculous but that's what I've found to be true here. :thumbsdown:
-
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.Has anyone watched the Colbert Report? Our meds are more expensive, and everyone knows you get what you pay for, so ours are obviously better.
-
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[^] --
Seven months ago I had a medical situation that required three ambulance trips to the hospital, a one month stay in the hospital with about a week in intensive care, numerous MRI's, CT scans, and Xrays, and expensive ($20000) transfusion treatments. I felt well cared for with prompt treatment throughout. As a Canadian, the direct cost to me was $0. I don't know what it would have cost in the US, but I suspect it would have totally ruined me financally.
73
-
zievo wrote:
costs are generally cheaper in Canada due to Federal regulation. For example, prescription drugs are substantially lower in Canada than the US. Cross-border purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually.
Costs are cheaper because they are subsidized by taxpayers. You probably end up paying more do to bureaucracy and lack of choice. They get your money no matter what, and you have no say in how it is spent.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
I come from Greece. I just verified that a tetanus shot costs 6€ to the hospital. The whole process of doing it, costs max 30' to the doctor, ie (with all charges, even if the hospital was actually not owning the room and had to pay for that during these 30', or even a whole hour (counting the hours the hospital is closed)) max 100€. Total 106€, ie about 140$. Ok, it is normal for the shot to cost more in the states (doctors are paid more etc etc). But from 140$ to 1350$, there is a difference... So no, in the end you don't pay more.
-
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[^] --
The fact that socialism is so demonized in the States is ridiculous. Insights from socialism have changed capitalism and helped it survive, particularly through its crises (1930 in the States, 68 in France and Germany). A good mix is often the best way.
-
Hired Mind wrote:
Welcome to the backwards bizzaro world of the collectivist, where private monopolies are bad, but monopolies enforced at the point of a gun, are just great!
In Canada, there is no monopoly. Health services are provided by a conglomerate of sources, many are private companies/hospitals/doctors, and the govt. just pays for it all using tax dollars, while also regulating prices. The biggest fear of monopolies is price fixing, and since the govt. foots the bill here, that isn't a concern.
Hired Mind wrote:
Canadians who profess that they're getting "better" health care with a nationalized health system are not paying attention. Do you realize that MRI waiting times are shorter for DOGS in Canada than they are for humans? Why is that?
You imply there is a direct link between a nationalized health system and long wait times, but that is in accurate. Your point 1 about baby boomers is happening here too, except they all get the health services they need instead of just the ones with insurance. That is one of the reasons we have a shortage of health care professionals, and as such some wait lines like MRI are long. That's a cherry picked item though, and most services aren't like that. Fixing it is the focus, and that will happen soon. I personally know 4 people who left their jobs to become doctors or nurses because of the shortage. The money is there to be had, thus an influx of resources are on their way.
the Zievo dude is completely right. I can't believe how you USA folks are funky and uptight when it comes down to your country issues. Most of Europe has the same health care system as Canada, and it's seems "free" for us, because we pay our taxes no matter what (you do, too, don't tell me you're avoiding taxes??). In France, Germany, Poland, even in SERBIA when you're sick, if you're paying your taxes normally like everybody else, you get health care FOR FREE, meaning, I get sick, I can go to doctors, hospital, I can get medication and even operations FOR FREE (meaning I just get up and head on home, and not a single bill comes to my house for that, ever). USA isn't the greatest (and by far) not the smartest running country in the world. Deal with it. $764 for a tetanus shot? Outrageous.
-
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[^] --
I have experienced healthcare in both the US and the UK. Given a choice, UK healthcare wins hands down. I have never experienced anything worse than the bureaucracy, over-complexity and inefficiency of US healthcare system. For a country that spends more on health care than any other country in the world. What a waste of money. There appears to be some kind of delusional thinking here in the US from people that the US healthcare is the best in the world; note that these people have little or no experience with other healthcare systems. Well wake up it's not, infact it sucks! Americans need to put aside ideology and admit.... It's broken and needs fixing.
-
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[^] --
The cost of the tetanus shot is basically just as high in Canada as the US, and more than likely, higher because of all the extra hands the money has to go through because of the government "paying" the bill. Just as in the US the "rich," those with insurance, are paying for the "poor," who don't have insurance, the same thing is happening in Canada where the "rich" are paying for the "poor." Of course the "poor" think they are getting all this for free, but someone, somewhere is paying for it. Some are paying their own way in taxes, others are paying much more than their own way because they make more money than the average Joe, and some pay very little. A lot of people think this is "fair." That's because most people are not in the "rich" category. I have found that when people are allowed to make a lot of money, and keep a lot of what they make, generally, they make more money than they would if they don't get to keep a lot of what they make. Hey, if I don't work hard but the government "pays" for everything for me, why work any more than absolutely necessary? Generally, this is not a conscience thought, but it sure happens.