Another Obamacare Socialized Medicine Nightmare.

[NobleSavage]

That was my thought as well. I broke my leg, had surgery, and was in the hospital for 4 days. My bill:

$8K for the room, $2k a night
$10K for the surgery
$10K or random shit
$500 for going into to the emergency room.

This was before Obamacare and I didn't have insurance. Once they realized I didn't have insurance the bill was cut in half.

So you paid $14,250? that seems reasonable price for fixing broken leg.
Still wonder how much it would be if you were insured.
How you broke you leg?

Mountain biking. It was a tibial plateau fracture. I have pins and plates and all kinds of hardware in my leg now. How much would insurance have paid? I don't know. From my understanding it's kind of a negotiation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it just me who thinks $73K is a bit too much for broken leg?

Well, the OP bill is for "my stupid broken leg, surgery and hospital stay. $73,710.00.". It doesn't say what the surgery was for or how long the hospital stay was. So, while it does sound like a lot too much for a broken leg, it may not be.

$73k including a hospital stay sounds about right to me. My father had a similar bill for a gallbladder removal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're judging by what it costs to set a Russian's leg. Americans are total wusses about it. We scream and whine so pitiably that all the doctors just find us really really annoying and none of them are willing to set an American's broken leg for less than $73K.

(Unless the bill is paid by an insurance company, of course. In that case the doctor will send the patient a pro forma $73K bill but in fact will settle with the insurance company for $7.3K. That procedure isn't so annoying because then the American with the broken leg won't be such a pussy. Huh. I guess that means the reason for all the annoying screaming and whining is actually the $73K. It's a vicious circle.)

Does patient know how much insurance company actually paid for his broken leg?

If they read their mail, yes. The insurance company always sends statements showing how claims were handled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it just me who thinks $73K is a bit too much for broken leg?

Well, the OP bill is for "my stupid broken leg, surgery and hospital stay. $73,710.00.". It doesn't say what the surgery was for or how long the hospital stay was. So, while it does sound like a lot too much for a broken leg, it may not be.

Agreed. "Broken leg" covers so much. I've seen broken leg problems that lingered for a couple of years--and ended up killing the guy.

 

[fromderinside]

It's a good thing Obama invented this "insurance".

Wasn't Obamacare based on RomneyCare which was based on a proposal by the Heritage Foundation? I don't see how Obama can claim to have invented it with this pedigree.

This is soooo easy. Republicans labeled it Obamacare. So obviously he invented it.

 

[Valjean]

Only in America

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20, Would not it be nice to fix this problem?

It would indeed. Repealing the laws that make it illegal to buy medical care from those outside the government-enforced cartel would be a good start -- it's hard to see who benefits from Americans facing a chronic doctor shortage while New York restaurant patrons are served meals by guys with MDs from Indian medical schools, except maybe the AMA and the legislators they buy. And if doctors had to compete for patients they'd probably be a lot more up-front about what they charge.

Alternately, we could have the government design a national health service. Those work pretty well in some countries. But knowing our government, we'd probably create another one that doesn't work well. Better, we could get the government to admit that they aren't competent to design one and instead just copy the NHS from a country with one that works well. I nominate the French system. '... the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.'

(Of course, that's assuming it works as well as Wikipedia says. Wikipedia is known to be unreliable; and the above link is full of obviously wrong assertions like these:

"Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.
...
Only about 3.7% of hospital treatment costs are reimbursed through private insurance, but a much higher share of the cost of spectacles and prostheses (21.9%), drugs (18.6%) and dental care (35.9%) (Figures from the year 2000). There are public hospitals, non-profit independent hospitals (which are linked to the public system), as well as private for-profit hospitals.
...
After paying the doctor's or dentist's fee, a proportion is reimbursed. This is around 75 to 80%, but can be as much as 85%. The balance is effectively a co-payment paid by the patient but it can also be recovered if the patient pays a regular premium to a voluntary health insurance scheme. Nationally, about half of such copayments are paid from VHI insurance and half out of pocket.
...
All working people are required to pay a portion of their income into a health insurance fund, which mutualizes the risk of illness and which reimburses medical expenses at varying rates. Children and spouses of insured individuals are eligible for benefits, as well. Each fund is free to manage its own budget and reimburse medical expenses at the rate it saw fit."​

If those things were true then that would mean the French system isn't single-payer.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For what you received that doesn't sound like a lot of money. I had the same procedure and still carry all the hardware from 35 years ago. But I spent almost two weeks in hospital.

That's how insurance is supposed to work.

 

[dismal]

Wasn't Obamacare based on RomneyCare which was based on a proposal by the Heritage Foundation? I don't see how Obama can claim to have invented it with this pedigree.

This is soooo easy. Republicans labeled it Obamacare. So obviously he invented it.

Right. There may be a few crazy old timers who say this "insurance" existed before Obamacare, but I think they are just racists or something.

 

[barbos]

$73K for broken leg 4-7 days stay in a hospital is equivalent to 50 people with average salary of $73k working 8 hours a day for a week just on you. That's what $73k is. I don't know what is the average salary in hospital is, probably higher than $73k but you get the analogy.
I know, I ignored cost of research of all the drugs and technology, but still.

 

[James Brown]

Wasn't Obamacare based on RomneyCare which was based on a proposal by the Heritage Foundation? I don't see how Obama can claim to have invented it with this pedigree.

Yes, I completely forgot that Obamacare is right wing ideas. So any success of Obamacare is a success of right wing ideas.

Which explains why Republicans are working so hard to dismantle Obamacare. Because it was their idea all along.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I completely forgot that Obamacare is right wing ideas. So any success of Obamacare is a success of right wing ideas.

Which explains why Republicans are working so hard to dismantle Obamacare. Because it was their idea all along.

Republicans oppose it for the same reason they try to block everything connected to the president.
It all started goes back to the Caucus Room Conspiracy.

 

[untermensche]

Which explains why Republicans are working so hard to dismantle Obamacare. Because it was their idea all along.

Republicans oppose it for the same reason they try to block everything connected to the president.
It all started goes back to the Caucus Room Conspiracy.

The present Republicans are purely political.

They have no policies to improve anything. And don't seem to think they need one.

 

[ksen]

They have no policies to improve anything.

Yes they do: cut taxes and regulations.

 

[untermensche]

They have no policies to improve anything.

Yes they do: cut taxes and regulations.

That's what they did all during the Bush administrations.

Not exactly an improvement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They have no policies to improve anything.

Yes they do: cut taxes and regulations.

You missed a few words.

While I do agree there are some regulations that should be cut I don't see the Republicans going after them.

 

[dx713]

Bomb#20, Would not it be nice to fix this problem?

It would indeed. Repealing the laws that make it illegal to buy medical care from those outside the government-enforced cartel would be a good start -- it's hard to see who benefits from Americans facing a chronic doctor shortage while New York restaurant patrons are served meals by guys with MDs from Indian medical schools, except maybe the AMA and the legislators they buy. And if doctors had to compete for patients they'd probably be a lot more up-front about what they charge.

Alternately, we could have the government design a national health service. Those work pretty well in some countries. But knowing our government, we'd probably create another one that doesn't work well. Better, we could get the government to admit that they aren't competent to design one and instead just copy the NHS from a country with one that works well. I nominate the French system. '... the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.'

(Of course, that's assuming it works as well as Wikipedia says. Wikipedia is known to be unreliable; and the above link is full of obviously wrong assertions like these:

"Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.
...
Only about 3.7% of hospital treatment costs are reimbursed through private insurance, but a much higher share of the cost of spectacles and prostheses (21.9%), drugs (18.6%) and dental care (35.9%) (Figures from the year 2000). There are public hospitals, non-profit independent hospitals (which are linked to the public system), as well as private for-profit hospitals.
...
After paying the doctor's or dentist's fee, a proportion is reimbursed. This is around 75 to 80%, but can be as much as 85%. The balance is effectively a co-payment paid by the patient but it can also be recovered if the patient pays a regular premium to a voluntary health insurance scheme. Nationally, about half of such copayments are paid from VHI insurance and half out of pocket.
...
All working people are required to pay a portion of their income into a health insurance fund, which mutualizes the risk of illness and which reimburses medical expenses at varying rates. Children and spouses of insured individuals are eligible for benefits, as well. Each fund is free to manage its own budget and reimburse medical expenses at the rate it saw fit."​

If those things were true then that would mean the French system isn't single-payer.)

Those things are true.

• The system has always been very bad at helping with glasses (considered a luxury purchase beyond a basic modeal that's chronically unavailable and outdated), and dental care (for reasons I don't understand, but basically because the rules haven't evolved from the time you just pulled out a bad tooth and bridges or implants were luxury). So our poor generally go with badly corrected eyesight, and without teeth (pulling them out and having a removable denture like grandpa is funded).
• The system is no more fully single payer. Years of "taxes are bad" government, or "in the pocket of insurance companies" government, depending how evil they were (or you think they were) have led to decrease funding rates instead of taxes increases. So people who want a comprehensive coverage have turned to private insurances to plug the gap (either personnaly purchased or provided by our companies).

That's actually one of the big criticism of the government by the people who think the "socialists" aren't really leftists anymore or who think we are too much "americanizing" ourselves.

We still have 100% coverage for pregnancy related costs, and cancers and most other serious and chronic illnesses, and a previous socialist government put in place some kind of automatic cover for the poorest, so not all is lost, but yeah, there have been blows to the system, notably during Chirac years (either as PM or president).

 

[Sabine Grant]

Those things are true.

Within the 2 tier system, one of them is a single payer system which still has the advantage of providing access to health care and and access far more superior than what you will encounter in the US. The reality remains that our ailing or medically needy French never have to consider skipping mortgage payments because they have to redirect their income towards out of pocket medical cost. I am not aware of the same medically needy French accumulating Credit Card charges to sustain out of pocket medical cost , resulting in owing 20.000 dollars and that without including interests.

[*]The system has always been very bad at helping with glasses (considered a luxury purchase beyond a basic modeal that's chronically unavailable and outdated), and dental care (for reasons I don't understand, but basically because the rules haven't evolved from the time you just pulled out a bad tooth and bridges or implants were luxury). So our poor generally go with badly corrected eyesight, and without teeth (pulling them out and having a removable denture like grandpa is funded).

But I can tell you that even under a dental plan coverage (private) in the US, dental appliances to include bridges are going to amount to out of pocket cost. If we had an adequate dental plan under my husband's employer's group plan, we still had to shell out 5000 dollars for my bridge (The apparatus itself). Do not even get me started on orthodontic grafts necessary to strengthen gums affected by periodontic disease before a bridge can be installed.

Regarding eye care : definitely poor coverage. However, when it comes to cataract surgery, providers are not dependent on ambulatory outpatient surgical facilities as it is the case in the US. Facility fees of 2000 dollars per each procedure on each eye. Another cost out of pocket for the patient.(total 4000 and forget getting the surgical procedure done if you cannot pay those fees upfront). What you have there is a para profit centered industry via those ambulatory outpatient surgical facilities. In France, the procedure is done in a hospital.( as an outpatient).

The system is no more fully single payer. Years of "taxes are bad" government, or "in the pocket of insurance companies" government, depending how evil they were (or you think they were) have led to decrease funding rates instead of taxes increases. So people who want a comprehensive coverage have turned to private insurances to plug the gap (either personnaly purchased or provided by our companies).

However, the vast difference if not drastic is that you still get coverage in France without "turning to private insurance". Whichever medical procedure, treatment you need will still be provided. You will not be carrying the financial burden under insured and non insured medically needy Americans carry.

That's actually one of the big criticism of the government by the people who think the "socialists" aren't really leftists anymore or who think we are too much "americanizing" ourselves.

Was not Sarkosy the main culprit in drooling over the American system?

We still have 100% coverage for pregnancy related costs, and cancers and most other serious and chronic illnesses,

Mind you that the category under "disastrous illnesses" was the very category of medically needy Americans persistently rejected by the private Insurance industry. The AHCA eliminated such financial liability based discrimination targeting Americans affected by cancer and other serious and chronic illnesses. In 2010, under our crumb/garbage employer provider group plan, if my oncologist had told me " Veronique, a surgical intervention alone remains inadequate to guarantee remission", I would have had to consider relocating to France, while leaving my family behind in the US, my home and my employment. If we managed to assume the cost out of pocket for surgical fees, anesthesiology fees, biopsy, imaging tests, there is absolutely no way we would have been able to afford the cost out of pocket of monoclonal treatments to get me back in remission. I was fortunate enough that lymphoma had resurged as a Stage 1 and isolated.( a couple of inguinal nodes which were surgically removed).

and a previous socialist government put in place some kind of automatic cover for the poorest, so not all is lost, but yeah, there have been blows to the system, notably during Chirac years (either as PM or president).

And Sarkosy years.

 

[dx713]

<snip for readability>

(...) so not all is lost, but yeah, there have been blows to the system, notably during Chirac years (either as PM or president).

And Sarkosy years.

Yes, Sarkosy was bad at the "we need to be more like the US thing", but the trend on attacking the "sécurité sociale" was actually started by Chirac (and even, if I remember well, during the Miterrand/Chirac "cohabitation"). Using a big "sécu deficit hole" figure that was in fact three-quarter due to companies tax-cuts that the government never compensated as promised.

I agree with the rest of your post or thank you for the information I didn't have. I did not mean to attack the French model, just confirm the wikipedia quote and remind that, while it might look rosy from outside, maintaining it is still an ongoing political struggle.
(actually, maintaining the whole repartition scheme inherited from "la résistance" is an intensifying struggle, as we're sliding even more towards capitalisation on other subjects like retirement and unemployment benefits, but that would be a derail. Maybe one day I'll take the time to make another thread about that)