gsjackson wrote:It is actually cheaper for many patients to pay for surgery out of pocket than pay with insurance due to the added costs insurance companies force upon providers. Surgery center of oklahoma is a cash only surgical center, which can perform an inguinal hernia repair for $3,060. The average cost of the same procedure in a hospital is $14,000. Even with insurance, you would likely end up paying more than 3k, as surgical copays are often 2k plus 20% of the cost of surgery. My insurance is good, in network it would cost me a 1k copay plus 2600 (20% coinsurance on 13k) for a total of 3600 or 570 dollars more than the place that doesnt accept insurance. Plus I plan to offer discount rates based on patient income and ability to pay and do some pro bono work, because its the ethical thing to do. How is it unethical to provide a needed service at reduced cost to the consumer and society? And how is it unethical to choose how many charity cases I perform, rather than being forced to perform them by a hospital employer? Look up surgery center of oklahoma, or any of the primary care practices that have gone cash only. The care costs LESS and is better than that offered by those with the overhead of insurance.HouseMD wrote:Oh, so no poor or middle-income elderly patients for you, then. Well, you will be completely at the mercy of a cartel of bloodsucking middlemen who provide no service (insurance companies), unless you plan on rounding up a clientele of the ultra-affluent. In which case, the moral authority of your pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps sermons might be diminished somewhat in the eyes of people who are looking squarely at the dramatically increasing polarization of wealth and trying to figure out just what the heck is going on.gsjackson wrote:[quote="HouseMD
I won't accept medicare.
Its super cheap to have surgeries done anywhere but here.Hey, I'm all for it, if you can do it, which seems pretty doubtful in the US. My parents paid about 50 bucks to produce me back in 1950. And they paid out of pocket, as most medical consumers did back then. But in the interim the medical services industry has been taken over by the insurance industry, which has totally distorted the market. If you can function outside their distortion, more power to you.
But I'm going to pay careful attention to cornfed or anybody else who can help me understand why every aspect of the economy has been taken over and corrupted by the financial sector. And I'm pretty certain this subject is not irrelevant to the job market as a whole, which so many are having frustrating encounters with these days, especially white males.
It cost your parents $50 to have you in 1950? Its about 100 times more than that now - http://www.newser.com/story/170316/us-m ... world.html
The truth is somewhat like this. In Britain, people with means buy healthcare insurance to get around the "Gatekeeper" system. But for things like births which are often planned well in advance are done by the NHS, where they pay - $0 (directly out of pocket). The key is not to be at the mercy of the NHS which the Torres are trying to make the case for going fully private, by cutting back its budget and services.
Whatever, like I said, you mutherfuckers can deal with damage control in Western World, I'm outta here.