General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid You Know This Shocking Way That We're Behind Much Of The World?
Found on the Facebook wall of The Peoples Boycott/MoveOn.org
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)They dont have massive hospital bills afterwords in most of those countries either.
We suck in comparison.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)100,000 dollars.
That wasn't for delivery. It was for a week in NICU. Delivery was 33,000.
Yay America!
Selatius
(20,441 posts)The reason why prices are so inflated are two-fold.
First, the few big insurance companies would rather simply pass on the buck to their customers than actually spend time and energy trying to curb medical cost inflation. They're too busy trying to gouge customers and throw them under the bus and operating as a cartel in everything but name. If health insurance premiums are expensive, it's likely because there is no competition and thus no incentive for health insurance companies to price premiums competitively.
Second, it's hard to stoke competition between hospitals to keep costs down. A gunshot victim wants to know where the nearest hospital is; he's not going to spend time to compare prices between hospitals. Also, compared to the past, most hospitals nowadays are run as for-profit ventures. The days where most hospitals are owned by municipalities or operated by churches are over. There's profit to be had and shareholders to be satisfied and executives to be paid, and any good capitalist will run his business to generate a profit first and foremost, everything and everyone else being secondary.
oldernwiser
(52 posts)Sorry, but I have to take issue with you here. First, insurance companies have nothing to do with setting costs. They are the agents we have set up in order to pool our funds together and have the "social medicine" that Rush Limbaugh likes to prattle on about. Premiums are expensive for 2 reasons - health providers are charging more for their services, and not enough healthy individuals are subscribing. Simple as that. State law sets the rates for premiums which pretty much blows up the lack of competition argument. State law also prohibits health insurance companies from making a profit on premiums. It is in the insurance company's best interest to keep premiums as low as possible in order to retain subscribers. Any cash the insurers get comes from an administrative fee which is regulated by the state's insurance commissioner.
Second, competition would do next to nothing to keep a hospital's rates down. As it stands, private hospitals are indeed for-profit business ventures. However, public hospitals are mandated by law to accept patients regardless of their ability to pay. This means that when people visit the emergency room because they can't afford insurance or a regular doctor, those of us who have the ability to pay - either out of our pockets or through insurance - have to pick up the slack and pay a share of that burden. Loss of revenue causes loss of employment, just ask a nurse. Enough loss can cause a trauma center to close and shift it's patients to another - public - hospital causing MAJOR delays in treatment.
Business is business in both public and private hospitals. We pay for their payroll in both cases, but a private hospital has the luxury of requiring payment before service is rendered and only in this case does competition enter into the rates.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)insurance companies did the most immoral thing in all of our health care system --they worked to systematically deny care or coverage to sick patients as a way to make money
it's almost the opposite of the Hippocratic Oath.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)As far as "...they are the agents we have set up..." I never was aware that they were set up and operated in the sense that we actually set them up, like paying for the establishment of a sewage and water treatment system. They are no more our agents than Microsoft is an agent for us to get better operating systems. The market for health insurance companies has been exempt from anti-trust laws since about the 1930s. This is an aspect of law that is the result of an aborted attempt at health insurance reform under FDR. The deal was that states regulate the market for health insurance in exchange for the government backing off the issue altogether, but states have largely reneged on that deal and in their entirety in some cases. The result is this:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/competition-health-insurers.page
If you want cheap health insurance rates, you might want to break up the cartel. That'll both bring down premiums and grant wider coverage to people who have trouble as it is affording insurance, the same ones who use the ER as a health care answer driving up costs. I don't know anyone serious in the legal and medical field who honestly thinks letting states regulate the health insurance market as they currently do, is an adequate solution to the problem. It hasn't been. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were so.
Jake2413
(226 posts)Patient had CT scan of abdomen, hospital billed $6,707 after the Blue Cross Blue Shield negotiated rate patient owed $2,336. Patient later found if they didn't use insurance cost would have been $1,054.
Another patient, different hospital, CT scan of abdomen, charged $4,423 BCBS negotiated rate $2,400. When the LA Times called the hospital, they said the cash price was $250.
You do the math. Who is keeping all the patient due $$$$?
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)But we could have had our son in the regular hospital section for no charge.
And you're right, there are no "bills" at a hospital. I'm always amazed to see "Cashiers" at a hospital in American shows and movies.
Sea-Dog
(247 posts)*elsewhere*
teddy51
(3,491 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)The graphic is highly misleading, as only 15 weeks is classified as mat leave. The rest is 'family leave' and can be split between the spouses however they wish. I have many friends whose husbands took 10 or so weeks off.
Also misleading is the 'paid' part. Sure it is - at 50% of your regular salary. Might be more for some people but for me it was at 50%. I think my friend got near 70%.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)To be born with testicles is to be born accursed.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)An evolutionary scientist author said on the local radio Progressive show that males castrated early in life have a 10-15 year old longer life expectancy. It was in response to how THom Hartmann claims that testosterone is the most dangerous drug in the world.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I think that is the first post of yours I have seen that didn't say sir or ma'am. But you know what? It was proper in this case.
DoBotherMe
(2,339 posts)someone's been properly rebuffed and probably doesn't know it. LOL! Dana ; )
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)csziggy
(34,133 posts)Male horses who are castrated grow taller and more muscular. That's one reason many horses used for jumping and showing are castrated.
I always wonder about the overly muscular men...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Sea-Dog
(247 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Sea-Dog
(247 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)Long hours? Sure. A 40 hour week would have been a fishing trip.
Plenty of pressure? I earned my gray hair. At 28.
Dealing with very unhappy people? I learned to bring peace and reason.
I could fix anything! Or at least, from time to time, loose with grace.
Unexpected out of town trips. I'll never take a retirement vacation. Spent too much time in motel rooms already.
I developed an honest dislike for airplains.
Seriously, I don't even eat out.
When my daughter was born, they asked in all seriousness if I would be taking maternity leave.
I was the father!
It was long ago and it was far away, and it was so much better than it is today.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)we are well on our way to second or even third world status. Compared to China our workers got lots of rights. No jobs or money but lots of rights.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Try protesting- then you will find out what rights we don't have
mwb970
(11,356 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)with mothers who are overworked, underpaid and impatient or not emotionally present for their babies. It's a terrible thing.
The babies are not to blame.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I wonder if people have an understanding of what a huge psychic wound it is for children to have a mother who is not emotionally present? I am witnessing that in my roomie's 'DIL' (IF she ever marries roomie's son...): DIL is chronically mentally and emotionally disconnected from her children.
Both children (roomie's bio-grandbaby and an older brother) frequently state that they want to 'stay with' Granny, or they want to 'live with' Granny, especially after they've had a visit or a sleep-over. They act out aggressively when their mother retrieves them, and they have no respect for her authority.
Granny suspects that DIL lays around and sleeps most of the day, letting the children scrounge in the fridge for sugary snacks, instead of preparing meals. The house is just this side of hoarded, and has a stench of old food and urine. Just last week, the 2 YO grandbaby had beads of styrofoam in her stool (Poison Control assured Granny that it wasn't toxic).
(JIC: I've worked for social services in our state, and I'm helping my roomie monitor this situation. I'm confident my roomie will do whatever is necessary to keep these children safe.)
tanyev
(42,541 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)and non-multi-millionaires. Exceptional is appropriate.
mwooldri
(10,302 posts)If you're lucky to work for a more progressive company you get more. Otherwise you get to use FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) as your "maternity leave" - if you're lucky.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)This from an NPR web posting from mid-2011....
QUOTE
Parents are allocated a total of 480 days per child, which they can take any time until the child is 8 years old. They can share these days, although 60 are allocated specifically to the father. And they are entitled to receive 80 percent of their wages, although this is capped at a certain level.
UNQUOTE
metalbot
(1,058 posts)It looks like that is saying that they would receive 80% salary for up to a year per child.
I'd assume that this must be the government, since you'd drive a lot of small businesses under if they had to cover it themselves.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)it comes out of the government unemployment insurance pot. So everyone pays into it.
DoBotherMe
(2,339 posts)If not, then you don't know what you are talking about. If there were socialized medicine and other fine social programs to assist working families, my employees would be a lot happier, and it would cost much less than it does now for the measly benefits we are able to afford. If every worker and employer had to pay into a system to assist ALL workers (and if we didn't subsidize big oil and big business and the fucking war machine), it would be possible to make work a pleasure rather than a worry. So quit the absurdity if you have no idea what it takes to run a small software and engineering firm with educated workers and expensive technology! Sure we could run a Taco John's, but we offer a service here in the US that has all but been shipped overseas where there is free healthcare and maternity leave. Wages aren't everything to a working person you know. Dana
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)since my wife had to work for our families health insurance we could never get over the hump to expand into full time. we checked in to the cost if we bought ours..almost half the net profit of our business. she kept working and eventually i found a job in my trade.
it really sucked because we could have been successful.
Beowulf
(761 posts)many of those countries also provide child support to the parent to help pay for food, clothing and other necessities.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)There are generous subsidies as well for child daycare.
One would think that the whitey righties who are so worried about becoming the minority in this country would embrace the idea of encouraging childbirth and child rearing.
One of the main reasons for the ethnic trending in this country is that minorities, especially latinos, are having many more children than their white counterparts.
The whites want a certain standard of living and often consider the cost of each child against the impact to overall family income. In addition they often want to be able to spend fairly lavishly on their children.
One reason countries like Sweden do this is to counter a negative birth rate. They want to encourage childbirth and with universal health care, various subsidies and support for families, generous education policies, etc. actually want to have those children grow up healthy and productive.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)are so opposed to any programs that subsidize childbirth and childcare is precisely because there's no legal way to exclude minorities from making use of such programs. Indeed, they want to cut what we already have. Many of them blame the pathetic systems we have in place today for the fact that minorities are having "too many" children as compared to whites.
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)...except for the people in it!
Ilsa
(61,691 posts)on their children than we do, simply put.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Once the are born, f 'em.
dynasaw
(998 posts)Countries that have paid maternity and paid paternity leave.
pansypoo53219
(20,968 posts)he was sick for the flight over + spent 1 day or so in the hospital. got meds for $111! bit of a insurance issue cause he was unable to contanct them before he went in. so, he let me know not only would they pay his bills, but for the time he lost of his vacay in the hospital!
but he still complains about taxes.
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)I heard someone on the radio once who had traveled from Holland, I think, to NYC say it was like going from the Jetsons to the Flintstones.
pampango
(24,692 posts)economy.
Those who claim we can't have high wages, strong unions and progressive policies because of the global economy haven't been to Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, etc. While they provide generous maternity leave, the US provides the opposite. They have progressive taxes, we have the opposite. They have strong, pervasive unions, we have the opposite. ... And we wonder why our middle class suffers, while it is stronger in the social democracies.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)when it's in the uterus.
After it's out? Ha!!!
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)women are to work until the last minute - squat and give birth and go back to work! If they have a cadillac health plan they will be able to clean themselves up before returning to work.