Cost of a tetanus shot in the US
-
Who actually said that "socialism is better"? "Any time there is a natural disaster 80% of the aid comes from the US." citation needed "Any time a dictator invades his neighbors, the US sends 90% of the military force to help push them back. (not just Iraq but look back over the last 100 years)" you mean when the dictator was not actively supported by the US? Because here, by talking about the last 100 years to a Greek, you actually hit the wrong button. "and the rest of the world come to the US for specialized care." Only hyper-rich or very very special cases. Also, citation needed "Socializing any aspect of life takes away the drive for improvement." One of the most wonderful quotes I've ever read :laugh:
I put the citations together, and typed up a rather lenghty post with supporting information and decided that minds will not be changed and it would be a fruitless exchange. Believe what you will, or look at the facts. Either way, that you do not believe as I believe only proves that I do not believe as you believe and that is all it proves.
-
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[^] --
That has been the law in many US states for decades. NJ for example has had that law for 20+ years - a hospital emergency room can NOT turn away anyone for inability to pay. That's to prevent those nasty little issues where a hospital ER refuses treatment and leaves people to die on the sidewalk (and that has happened).... which was why the law was created in the first place. The result here in NJ of course has been increased medical costs for those who can pay. So as a society we have two choices: allow people to go untreated or pay higher medical fees either directly to the user or from taxes or other government funding. What's your choice? If you were out of a job for 6 months, no medical insurance, and it was your kid with a broken arm and 105 degree fever, what would you choose then?
-
I put the citations together, and typed up a rather lenghty post with supporting information and decided that minds will not be changed and it would be a fruitless exchange. Believe what you will, or look at the facts. Either way, that you do not believe as I believe only proves that I do not believe as you believe and that is all it proves.
I try not to believe, period ;).
-
That has been the law in many US states for decades. NJ for example has had that law for 20+ years - a hospital emergency room can NOT turn away anyone for inability to pay. That's to prevent those nasty little issues where a hospital ER refuses treatment and leaves people to die on the sidewalk (and that has happened).... which was why the law was created in the first place. The result here in NJ of course has been increased medical costs for those who can pay. So as a society we have two choices: allow people to go untreated or pay higher medical fees either directly to the user or from taxes or other government funding. What's your choice? If you were out of a job for 6 months, no medical insurance, and it was your kid with a broken arm and 105 degree fever, what would you choose then?
I agree that it is a humane society when it decides to take care of those that are unable to pay. And I have absolutely no complaints if insurance money was the sole source for funding such treatments (as in fact was the case with me). I'd much rather have my insurance premium pay for someone's care than line the pocket of a wealthy CEO as another self-administered "bonus". What I'd have beef with was if I did have some bank balance, but no insurance and was forced to fork up $1400+ for the treatment I got. I suspect this particular combination of circumstances is rather rare in this country as this issue would have come to the fore a tad more frequently than it has otherwise. Also, I wonder if it'd be useful if the cost re-distribution was made proportional to the amount of uncompensated care provided by a particular hospital. I don't know if that is already the case - I mean, there has to be some basis for determining the cost of a particular visit. Right now, from the patient's perspective all of it seems a little arbitrary. Why did the hospital claim $1400+ and not, say, $5000? Why did the insurance company only pay $700+?
-- gleat http://blogorama.nerdworks.in[^] --
-
Well, how much taxes you pay also depend on how much you earn. So if the selection is constant as compared to variable depending on what I get - I'd go for the second.
mars0u wrote:
Well, how much taxes you pay also depend on how much you earn.
Yes, the graduated income tax, the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto.
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)[^]
-
Come to France or Switzerland to see socialism (and not extreme). Even Germany is way more socialist than USA, and nobody needed to save them the last 70 years! But I won't get into that discussion right now, I need to much data and quote finding (example: even Adam Smith was advocating public education).
I'm for private property and personal liberty. When I work, I expect to get fully compensated for my labor. The only things taxes should pay for are roads, police, fire, military, and things of that nature. Those taxes should be indirect, IE no income tax. My money should not go to subsidies of any sort, unless I specifically choose to donate to a cause. And I here France is getting pretty bad with their regulations, specifically over the internet.
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'm for private property and personal liberty. When I work, I expect to get fully compensated for my labor. The only things taxes should pay for are roads, police, fire, military, and things of that nature. Those taxes should be indirect, IE no income tax. My money should not go to subsidies of any sort, unless I specifically choose to donate to a cause. And I here France is getting pretty bad with their regulations, specifically over the internet.
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)[^]
You have every right to have these political opinions. But here we have a discussion, with arguments and information.
-
You have every right to have these political opinions. But here we have a discussion, with arguments and information.
Just avoid the sharpshooters and looters.
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)[^]
-
No, you don't get it, nothing is free. If you think your health industry is some magic divine identity that doesn't care about profits then you are out of your mind. They get your money forcibly through the government. I never had insurance, when I went to the doctor it cost me 40 bucks for a diagnosis, maybe more if tests were involved. If you go to the emergency room, you will be charged a lot because you are subsidizing those who don't pay for their healthcare bills (the poor). You are seeing hre real cost of those subsidies, you probably pay more since you are in a more subsidized nation.
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)[^]
How about when you do have medical insurance (as I do), pay weekly for the insurance (as I do) and then don't have most things covered or have little covered and still have to pay a fortune out of pocket? Hmm, that sounds fair. I pay dental insurance every week and it just cost me $583.00 to have a tooth removed. That's after the insurance company kicked in their little bit. They decided not to cover anesthesia if less than two teeth are removed. I guess I should have had more teeth pulled. How about my buddy here at work whose wife got sick (here in Arizona) and to go to LA for treatments because that was the only way the insurance company would pay their 80% of costs. Oh yeah, the trips to and from California are not covered. It goes on and on and on, people have insurance and still have to pay a fortune out of pocket if they get sick. I would rather pay more in taxes and have everything covered as the rest of the free world does. Of course you probably work for a fortune 500 company and don't have to worry about it but most of the US still have Inadequate insuance (FACT!).
-
How about when you do have medical insurance (as I do), pay weekly for the insurance (as I do) and then don't have most things covered or have little covered and still have to pay a fortune out of pocket? Hmm, that sounds fair. I pay dental insurance every week and it just cost me $583.00 to have a tooth removed. That's after the insurance company kicked in their little bit. They decided not to cover anesthesia if less than two teeth are removed. I guess I should have had more teeth pulled. How about my buddy here at work whose wife got sick (here in Arizona) and to go to LA for treatments because that was the only way the insurance company would pay their 80% of costs. Oh yeah, the trips to and from California are not covered. It goes on and on and on, people have insurance and still have to pay a fortune out of pocket if they get sick. I would rather pay more in taxes and have everything covered as the rest of the free world does. Of course you probably work for a fortune 500 company and don't have to worry about it but most of the US still have Inadequate insuance (FACT!).
You will have to pay for all that, plus more if it is subsidized. The problem is within the system, not where funding for the broken system comes from.
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)[^]
-
Well they think Fox is a news channel...
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
LOL So true, Fox is such a load of biased crap. Murdoch is an evil little wretch, which is strange as his mother is a grand dame of the Australian arts and a very sensible woman. Either she flunked the motherhood bit or he's the black sheep, I suspect the latter.
-
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.)
-
If socialism is so much better, why does the world come to the US for help in all aspects of life. Any time there is a natural disaster 80% of the aid comes from the US. Any time a dictator invades his neighbors, the US sends 90% of the military force to help push them back. (not just Iraq but look back over the last 100 years) And why if socialized medicine is so great do people from all over Europe and Canada, and the rest of the world come to the US for specialized care. Socializing any aspect of life takes away the drive for improvement. What reward can I possibly get from spending my life working towards making something better when the government thinks what we have is good enough. vis a vis the world coming to the US for better care. Beyond that, as crazy as our tax code is people in the US pay less tax than most first world countries and typically by 20%. No our system is not perfect but socializing is probably not the answer. Improving Medicare/Medicaid would go much further for a short term fix then would buy time to consider the costs of a further reaching program. The problem with what the Obama administration is doing is they are trying to eat the whole elephant in one bite. That also means they don't really know what they are getting into for the long run and if it fails we are all worse off than where we stand today.
Countries come to the US because its the 2nd richest economy in the world. This depends on how you measure these things, the CIA have the EU as richer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29[^] When China is the richest (one or two decades away but pretty much inevitable) then they will come begging at China's doorstep. They used to come begging at Englands doortep 100 years ago. Does the leading counrties wealth prove that they have the best system? No not really. Usually it indicates they have the largest industrial base and the strongest military. To tag socialism as bad because the US is rich is comparing apples with oranges.
-
The upper class in England often use similar arguments. Why not try 30 days on minimum wage and you will see how hard and emotionally stressful things get. I think Morgan Spurlock did an episode on that. [^]
Morgan Spurlock is a fraud. When he was doing that, he and his girlfriend were trying to buy expensive items like booze, cigarettes, steak and so forth. Do the numbers; two people on minimum wage can gross over $2000 a month. That's not chump change. Is it fabulous? No, but it's a helluva lot more than my wife and I were making [adjusted] when our first was born a bit over twenty years ago. That said, that's not my argument. My argument is that if these people were as poor as this guy said, then full time on minimum wage would be a step up. I then pointed out that they should get an education so to get a better step up. I have zero sympathy for anyone over twenty-five complaining about about having to work for minimum wage.
-
Here's another that shows a more stark difference... http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php Life expectancy vs Health care expenditure http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost\_longlife75.gif
-
Never mind the lady that was pregnant, couldn't afford pre-natal care, and the had to have a C-section for a 12 lb stillborn due to diabetes. Or the 25 yr old guy that committed suicide due to perceived issues over large medical bills from an accident (Personally I'd have taken the bankruptcy route first) To all those that object to socialised health care - I presume you are against taxes paying for roads too?
Oh bullshit. Every state has prenatal programs and several have excellent programs, so don't spew that crap. In addition, the federal government has Medicaid, CHIP and WIC and several other programs. States have several programs for the needy. And stop the taxes for roads argument. It's idiotic. Nobody is arguing that there shall be no government programs and if you even read any fucking word I said, you'd see that. Look at the above paragraph. What the hell do you think WIC is? And Medicaid and CHIP? Hmm? I'm against the federal government socializing a sector of our economy when the are provably incompetent at it. By treaty, the US is obligated to provide American Indians with health care. It's called the IHS and it's a nightmare. When the federal government provides services under IHS remotely comparable to even the VA system, then then can start talking about being competent enough to handle health care. We have a federalized system for a reason. If Massachusetts wants to have socialized medicine, let them. If Arizona wants to do it another way, let them, but don't force some federal system down everyone's throats, especially for those of us in responsible states where the poor ARE covered and there are ways to get the help you may need. Since you support socialized health care, I presume you want my taxes to pay your mortgage when you get into trouble or fix your car?
-
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 want to throw some points to think about- I do not get the point of the price at all- We need to buy most medicine- its private - if you dont have money you are not going to get medicine- (Well this is not true - someone is going to come with support as much possible- because of social structure) But, what is the price of a tetanus injection? Its is less that 3 USD that includes service cost- Now, the service can not be so better anywhere in world that it should cost so much (considering most human can be caring to the same level and technology cost is close zero here) The medicine producer companies are still highly profitable here- so it seems production cost must be very low as well- and this injection is available as generic medicine - Thanks
Maruf Maniruzzaman @ Dhaka, Bangladesh.
-
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[^] --
It looks like everyone has had a go at this, but here's a bit more: A. For some strange reason many in the US think universal health care == rampant socialism. Although no other 1st world country seems to have this problem. B. For some strange reason many in the US think that for-profit Health Insurance is automatically better than not-for-profit. Considering that the insurers are largely uninvolved in medical research then they have little to do with bringing about any substantial improvement in health care. Also the dividends paid to shareholders of for-profit health insurers are a direct cut into the premiums paid by those insured with them. C. A report from around two decades ago established that US Health Insurers were the least effective in terms of how much of each dollar of a premium actually ended up in health care - that situation hasn't really changed. In other words for your medical dollar in the US you get substantially less than those in most other countries, even where it is coming indirectly out of their taxes (and they have higher taxes as a consequence). Reviewers of US Health Care as it stands now (not the bleeding heart "let's all be socialists" kind, but pragmatists) stated that the simplest solution for the US is two fold: 1. All health insurers must be not-for-profit (not the same thing as non-profit). Even in such a model there are plenty of incentives for organizations to be competitive - especially if they involve the staff / senior management getting bonuses. 2. Standard procedures get standardized charges (this includes all post-operative care etc), set by an industry body / government or some statutory body. If a hospital wants to get more money it can just look to how it can control costs within each standard procedure, but it has to do so without compromising basic patient care or otherwise they end up losing money. In some respects this can lead to a 'production line' approach to some procedures but quite frankly the end results for the patient are usually better.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
-
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.
-
Oh bullshit. Every state has prenatal programs and several have excellent programs, so don't spew that crap. In addition, the federal government has Medicaid, CHIP and WIC and several other programs. States have several programs for the needy. And stop the taxes for roads argument. It's idiotic. Nobody is arguing that there shall be no government programs and if you even read any fucking word I said, you'd see that. Look at the above paragraph. What the hell do you think WIC is? And Medicaid and CHIP? Hmm? I'm against the federal government socializing a sector of our economy when the are provably incompetent at it. By treaty, the US is obligated to provide American Indians with health care. It's called the IHS and it's a nightmare. When the federal government provides services under IHS remotely comparable to even the VA system, then then can start talking about being competent enough to handle health care. We have a federalized system for a reason. If Massachusetts wants to have socialized medicine, let them. If Arizona wants to do it another way, let them, but don't force some federal system down everyone's throats, especially for those of us in responsible states where the poor ARE covered and there are ways to get the help you may need. Since you support socialized health care, I presume you want my taxes to pay your mortgage when you get into trouble or fix your car?
'Since you support socialized health care, I presume you want my taxes to pay your mortgage when you get into trouble or fix your car?' No. I do support a non-profit health care system that covers everyone - even you. I also support the ability to buy insurance for services over and above what the gvt can provide. Just like insurance policy A != insurance policy B, socialized health care A != socialized health care B. In some countries there is a parallel socialised and private health system. There are plenty of people here in the US that work there arse off at one or three jobs, earn too much to get WIC etc, but do not get employer based healthcare. (On a side issue, We are already paying for others mortgages - with the housing bubble collapse its in the unemployment lines, write downs in our house values etc.)
