Hospital bills new father $40 to hold his son.

[Endus]

yes, the second pill cost 5 dollars - but the first pill costs 5 billion.

Hyperbole isn't really going to help you. "Cost of production" includes R&D, too, so you're literally changing the argument.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you talking about? Basicaly what you are saying is, in order to get car insurance cheaper, the only way to do that is to make car insurance companies compete. But, like heath care, the insurer is only profiting of a small part of the total bill. It makes MUCH more sense to try and get the price of REPAIRS down.

There's a clear difference; owning a car is a choice. Your health really isn't. It's entire possible for car insurance to price themselves out of the market and lower car ownership as a result. People will mortgage their houses to get the health care they need, though.

And no; what I'm saying is that the profit motive itself is the issue. Whether it's at the insurance level or the service-provision level.

[araine]

This is what for profit healthcare looks like, we have a better solution out there folks it is called true public healthcare where the for profit motive gets removed and noone suffers from it.

[Tijuana]

Hyperbole isn't really going to help you. "Cost of production" includes R&D, too, so you're literally changing the argument.

- - - Updated - - -



There's a clear difference; owning a car is a choice. Your health really isn't. It's entire possible for car insurance to price themselves out of the market and lower car ownership as a result. People will mortgage their houses to get the health care they need, though.

And no; what I'm saying is that the profit motive itself is the issue. Whether it's at the insurance level or the service-provision level.

Dude, come on. My comparison to car insurance was based in proportionality of the total cost. I never said a thing about the mandate.

It's very simple. Look at your health care costs. The insurer is making like 5% on an average year. So, therefore they are a tiny part of your total cost. You simply cannot move the needle very far, when you address 5% of the costs (plus overhead).

This is akin to someone claiming they can cut the Federal budget by 50% without cutting military or entitlement spending. Math is real, and it doesn't care if you believe in it or not, Endus.

[Endus]

Dude, come on. My comparison to car insurance was based in proportionality of the total cost. I never said a thing about the mandate.

It's very simple. Look at your health care costs. The insurer is making like 5% on an average year. So, therefore they are a tiny part of your total cost. You simply cannot move the needle very far, when you address 5% of the costs (plus overhead).

This is akin to someone claiming they can cut the Federal budget by 50% without cutting military or entitlement spending. Math is real, and it doesn't care if you believe in it or not, Endus.

Again, you're pretending these are two separate and distinct systems, when the pricing on services and such is negotiated between hospitals and insurers. It's WHY prices are set where they are. Many things are priced way over the "normal" line, to make up costs, and insurance companies don't fight that overcharge, because their profit margins are based on throughput, not on slashing costs.

[Berengil]

What are you talking about? Basicaly what you are saying is, in order to get car insurance cheaper, the only way to do that is to make car insurance companies compete. But, like heath care, the insurer is only profiting of a small part of the total bill. It makes MUCH more sense to try and get the price of REPAIRS down.

This is why Obamacare is shit, and this is why I am a free market Milton Friedman capitalist, who supports single payer.

Da f?

No seriously, I'm confused. I thought those were utterly opposed. Do elaborate. I'm 100% no bullsht interested.

[Matchles]

Before everyone gets bent out of shape. It looks like the C Section is billed as an 80 minute procedure (assuming that is what they mean by "quantity") and the skin to skin portion is just there to signify the extra personnel present during that time. It is billed at the same rate as the C section too (well .03 more than the C section).

[Tijuana]

Again, you're pretending these are two separate and distinct systems, when the pricing on services and such is negotiated between hospitals and insurers. It's WHY prices are set where they are. Many things are priced way over the "normal" line, to make up costs, and insurance companies don't fight that overcharge, because their profit margins are based on throughput, not on slashing costs.

Yes, everything gets added to the final bill. Yes, they are intertwined. But at the end of the day, or the beginning I guess, the HOSPITAL GETS MOST OF THE MONEY. So, I don't know, maybe our focus should be THERE?

[Danbala]

When my mom had her hysterectomy, they charged $40+ for a box of feminine hygiene napkins... They're like $10 tops. The hopsital probably billed this as some gimmicky "therapy" and got away with it. I would have fought personally.

Edit: These were "standard" sized pads, nothing out of the ordinary.

[cubby]

Is this normal for hospitals to do? To make you pay to hold your own kid?

http://abc7.com/society/father-says-...h-son/1539548/

Skin-to-skin is an issue with C-Sections - historically hospitals have forbidden it. However, recently, the trend to allow it (at least with the moms) is rapidly rising - for both the mental health of the mom and the physical health of the baby.

[Tijuana]

Da f?

No seriously, I'm confused. I thought those were utterly opposed. Do elaborate. I'm 100% no bullsht interested.

Because capitalists love all the wonderful things that happen in capitalism. The competition of companies on price, the competition of companies on quality, and the competition of companies on market share do wonderful things for the masses. And NONE of these is present in health care. Where does the ambulance take you to? The closest hospital, right? Have you ever asked to be taken to a cheaper or better hospital in an emergency? Have you ever chosen a surgeon based on cost? Have you ever told your doctor, I'm going to get another price quote before you perform this emergency treatment? I would bet no to all.

Capitalism doesn't exist in heath care so lets stop pretending like it does.

[Berengil]

Because capitalists love all the wonderful things that happen in capitalism. The competition of companies on price, the competition of companies on quality, and the competition of companies on market share do wonderful things for the masses. And NONE of these is present in health care. Where does the ambulance take you to? The closest hospital, right? Have you ever asked to be taken to a cheaper or better hospital in an emergency? Have you ever chosen a surgeon based on cost? Have you ever told your doctor, I'm going to get another price quote before you perform this emergency treatment? I would bet no to all.

Capitalism doesn't exist in heath care so lets stop pretending like it does.

Impressive. A capitalist who isn't EBUL GUBMINT SOSHLIZM when speaking of health care. I tip my hat to you sir. /hattip

[bladeXcrasher]

interesting, this skin to skin contact is encouraged and the norm at the hospital my kid was born at. They don't even encourage the baby ever going the nursey either. Everything happened in the room and she wasn't taken away once.

[Tijuana]

Impressive. A capitalist who isn't EBUL GUBMINT SOSHLIZM when speaking of health care. I tip my hat to you sir. /hattip

99% of the politicians and pundits have no idea why they have a position on an issue. It would be nice if they were capable of actually considering WHY a good thing is a good thing.

Contrary to what the left might think, the right doesn't love capitalism because dudes get rich. They love it because it works far better than anything we have come up with, in so many industries. But, not all. It only works when there is consumer choice and free trade.

[dextersmith]

I'd sue and press charges for ransoming my baby.

[Snackwiches]

This is what for profit healthcare looks like, we have a better solution out there folks it is called true public healthcare where the for profit motive gets removed and noone suffers from it.

Pretty much, too much money is going to a pointless middle man in any case.

It's sad, when I was out of work for awhile I went on Medicaid and in some states with the Obamacare stuff Medicaid is just absurdly good, I just imagine it's the peace of mind other countries get to live with.

It was fucking depressing to go back on my shitty plan which still siphons my bank account to the bone if I have the audacity to get sick, which sadly I have been lately.

[Masark]

Skin-to-skin is an issue with C-Sections - historically hospitals have forbidden it. However, recently, the trend to allow it (at least with the moms) is rapidly rising - for both the mental health of the mom and the physical health of the baby.

According to what I've heard, skin to skin is more important to have following a c section, as they aren't exposed to the vaginal flora like with a regular birth.

[Hiricine]

I read the story closely and supposedly its more difficult to have skin-to-skin and extra providers present for a c-section which is the rationale for the increased cost.

Of course I don't buy that very much, hospital billing is super convoluted and makes absolutely no sense. The things the nurse spends 45 minutes in your room doing costs you 5$ and the 7 minutes the MD spends in the room with you gets billed for 240$. Its a side effect of the managed care clusterfuck that billing has turned into, and there isn't really a solution outside of single payer and self pay solutions.

[cubby]

According to what I've heard, skin to skin is more important to have following a c section, as they aren't exposed to the vaginal flora like with a regular birth.

You are entirely correct - post partum immediate skin-to-skin contact with momma and baby is essential.

[Taneras]

IMO, don't blame the hospitals, blame the lawyers.

[wtfzerg]

Pretending that they're not related is pretty silly. The reason to focus on the insurance companies is to try and see if the market will fix things through competition. I think it's clear (and it's unsurprising to me) that it doesn't.

Hospitals have to use these charges because THEY need to make profits, too, which is ridiculous. And they're required to treat people who can't pay, for humanitarian reasons, meaning they have a fairly significant sunk cost issue they need to offset with higher pricing. This leads to them jacking up prices as high as they can go, and again, in a free market for-profit system, it's only "bad" to jack up prices if it means people avoid using your services as a result. Something that's just not likely to happen, when the "service" is health care. This is why market solutions just don't work well in this sector. Because if you can produce a pill that cures cancer for $5 in production costs, you can charge $10,000 for each pill, because your goal isn't to cure people's cancer, it's to make as much money of cancer-sufferers as you can.

On a technicality, they have to make revenue, not a profit.