When the word "Oklahoma' appeared in the article the gross incometence became readily understandable.

If the shame doesn't get em, maybe the waves of outrage will.

I'm on Medicare: Medicare for all!

Well. Thank god she's at least not living in one of those socialist hell-holes like the EU or the UK or Japan or Canada or Australia or... you know, other places not enlightened by medical bankruptcy.

Hospital billing is a very complex beast, but a big part of why these ludicrous bills happen is because a hospital billing sent to an insurance company is not like other business bills or transactions.

The way hospitals bill insurance is more like a wish list. The insurer is only going to pay what they believe they have to, and not a cent more. So there is no harm in a hospital billing a $2 pill for $500, since the insurance company might pay for it, and if they don't you just bill them a more realistic amount until they do. It's a game, more or less.

But of course, then you have the patients that get caught in the crossfire and end up on the hook for this kind of stuff.

Luckily, since hospitals know they play this game, you can often get a "corrected" bill if you make it clear to them that insurance is not coming into play.

Single payer/Medicare for All will eliminate this problem.

@1 Health care rapaciousness is something that is not limited to red states.

Sarah Kliff at Vox is doing something similar with emergency room bills, including an outrageous story of someone who declined treatment being charged $5750 for walking in the door and accepting an ice pack.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/16936638/er-bills-emergency-room-hospital-fees-health-care-costs

(BTW, was it really necessary to strip out the ability to do any kind of formatting at all, Slog? Really?)

We spend tons of time demonizing insurance companies and not nearly enough time directing our outrage at the hospitals who make these insane mark ups.

My "centrist" (some would say "corporatist") idea is to turn private insurance companies to volunteer Medicare resellers.

The ACA already contains the price controls we need to stop insurance companies from marking up Medicare more than a reasonable amount.

Every insurance company would participate because they would get a large portion of their operations free/reduced (with no extra work required by the gov because we already make and maintain the medicare network).

And you could still pick insurance provider A over B because you like their online portal, they're customer service, that they are super pro-lgbt, or they're local and do business primarily in your native language, like Chinese Community Health Plans in SF.

@8: The first part of this is true, and I am glad to see someone say it.

I have been working for a large health insurer for some time, and I can say this completely truthfully, everyone I work with really does fight for our members, and does everything they can to help them out and get things right.

99% of the time people are pissed off about their insurance or bills, it is because either the provider did something shitty, or the company the person works for elected a crappy plan that screws them over.

Remember: your insurer does not set prices, and your insurer does not choose your plan. The provider and your company (if through work) sets the prices and chooses the plan.

Related to @5 is the fact that for things like lab tests insurance companies and (especially) medicare/medicaid have essentially contracted a discounted rate with their network's laboratories. This results in the labs figuring out how much a test costs to perform (including the hands-on time, cost to maintain equipment, cost to occupy space, consumables used, etc.), then they double it. The doubled price is what gets passed on to the insurance company/medicare with the understanding that only about 50% will be paid, which will be sufficient to cover the actual cost of performing the test.

@9. I am sure they are. but unfortunately, your job is big part of the problem. we have so many people showing up to work every day, working hard, making a decent wage, all out of the health care dollar spent that doesn't go to patient care. if we get single payer, a big chuck of the savings will come from eliminating your job. and most of the people you work with. and what do those folks do then?

@11: Uh, I don’t know, get another job? Why do people talk about jobs like they’re a zero sum game in which jobs lost are lost forever and ever, and markets don’t ever evolve to create new opportunities?

@11

See @12 is wrong.

Because it's terrifying that Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan — and almost every other developed western democracy with socialized healthcare — have these roving bands of angry unemployable worker genetically designed to be insurance company workers who are rendered totally incapable of doing work for any other sector of the economy. They roam the countryside with the blacksmiths and whalers beating up old ladies.

8, 9

People demonize insurance companies because they are unnecessary, and their entire business model is to skim off the top and deny coverage as much as possible.

Health insurance companies and the people who work for them are parasitical piles of shit. In an intelligent, just, compassionate society they would be utterly unnecessary. We do not live in such a society. So. Here we are.

There’s an effort in Washington State to bring an initiative to the ballot for universal healthcare. For WA residents who think these costs are ridiculous I encourage you to look for and sign I-1600. This effort is totally grass roots and volunteer run. Yeson1600.org They need support! Even the local progressive media is giving them the snub.

Journalist activist. Activist Journalist. I like that one better. Right the fuck on, Katie! Go Fourth fucking Estate!

Getting screwed by get-bigger-or-die Capitalism (in its death throes? prolly not.)? Sad. But don’t take it personally – it’s Just Business. And you’re just collateral damage.

Citizens? Nah. Consumers.
Oh and Buh-bye Consumer Protections.
Thanks, Trumpf -- u’re still winning!

@14 Gee, sounds like someone who doesn't understand how pooled risk works.

You could give the job of managing pooled risk to the government, but the government would then have the same financial incentive to cut costs and deny care...

...like states already do.

I'm sure many systems governments have lovely healthcare systems (and they obviously control cost better than we do) but as a gay man on PrEP I'm very grateful that I don't have to rely on the NHS of North Ireland.

And my idea would also lower costs.

Republicans will control the apparatus of your single payer system 50% of the time. You should remember that.

In an intelligent, just, compassionate society people would make healthy responsible lifestyle choices.
An intelligent, just, compassionate society would spend only a third what ours does for health care because its members were making healthy responsible lifestyle choices.
Also in an intelligent, just, compassionate society people would take responsibility for their own healthcare needs.

Um, I hate to break it to you guys, but if they did away with the "parasitical" (haha, are you drama queens serious?) office workers like me that make sure your health insurance plans are administered properly, single payer would not magically happen.

You act as like there was some kind of primordial American soup and insurance companies rose out of it and killed some ancient single payer plan before it could enact itself.

Our society chose this route, and insurance companies were formed to serve a real need. It's is your elected official's responsibility to change the laws, not people just trying to earn a paycheck by making sure you get the health coverage you purchased.

I would gladly accept the shrinking of the insurance industry if it meant a real single payer option. It is not like that would kill the private insurance industry anyway, which is clear if you look into other countries with single payer plans.