• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An unvaccinated boy got Oregon’s first tetanus case in 30 years — treating him cost over $800,000

Did you miss the "I'm going to assume (merely for the sake of simplicity) that the family actually received a bill that said "You Owe Us $800,000" (or something like that)" bit?



See above.



True, and it could be a totally fabricated incident that the family "verified" by using a so-called "bill" that they had printed up themselves.



So where do you see me "blaming" the hospital?

If it was a normally prepared normal bill at the hospital's normal rates that it normally charges for the services it performs, how is that the hospital's "fault"?

PS - My father was one of the pioneers in "computer generated hospital billing". That type of billing went a long way to eliminating the amount of expense that was NOT recovered due to the amount of "hand generated paper work" previously required.

OK -- you assumed the family got a bill for that. Not sure why you would do so, as that's not stated anywhere in the story. And it is rare that a patient is expected to pay total charges... even if it's purely self pay. They would have still received a bill / statement explaining the total charges. Again, the story is trying to highlight the high costs involved with this very preventable disease - not about how high the bill was for the family. I'm not sure where you're trying to go.
 
Last edited:
OK -- you assumed the family got a bill for that. Not sure why you would do so, as that's not stated anywhere in the story.

Did you miss the "(merely for the sake of simplicity)" bit in the "I'm going to assume (merely for the sake of simplicity) that the family actually received a bill that said "You Owe Us $800,000" (or something like that)" bit that you missed the first time when you read it after I had pointed it out to you?

And it is rare that a patient is expected to pay total charges... even if it's purely self pay.

Is it? If so, why not send a bill for what the patient is actually expected to pay. Sending an "inflated" bill (especially if an attempt to actually collect on it) COULD be looked on as akin to extortion.

They would have still received a bill / statement explaining the total charges. Again, the story is trying to highlight the high costs involved with this very preventable disease - not about how high the bill was for the family. I'm not sure where you're trying to go.

Did you read my original comment?

Just to put that US$800,000 into perspective, if the boy had spent 10 days in ICU and the remaining 30 days on a "regular" ward at the Vancouver General Hospital, the total bill would have been CDN$242,550 (which is approximately US$182,000) and if he had spent the entire 40 days in ICU the total bill would have been CDN$546,600 (which is approximately US$410,000).

On the other hand, according to Walgreens, the cost of Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis/Whooping Cough vaccination is $63.99 per dose.

Of course, if you don't support vaccinations then you really don't worry about the cost savings because you are much more worried about false statistics deliberately skewed and distorted in order to make your case than you are about the lives of your children.

PS - Don't be surprised to see the insurance company reject a goodly proportion of the family's claim on the basis that the family "deliberately failed to take known and proven preventative measures to the point where the injury equates to deliberately self-inflicted damage" and or "deliberately concealed relevant information in order to fraudulently obtain medical insurance".
 
Did you miss the "(merely for the sake of simplicity)" bit in the "I'm going to assume (merely for the sake of simplicity) that the family actually received a bill that said "You Owe Us $800,000" (or something like that)" bit that you missed the first time when you read it after I had pointed it out to you?

OK. Whatever. I'd prefer to discuss what we actually know, rather than adding (making up) a detail for 'simplicity'. There's no reason to 'assume' the patient got a bill for that amount - it's more likely they didn't.

Is it? If so, why not send a bill for what the patient is actually expected to pay. Sending an "inflated" bill (especially if an attempt to actually collect on it) COULD be looked on as akin to extortion.

No, this is how medical billing is done. You get a statement that includes the total charges, less any payments and adjustment, and an amount you owe. Often the original statement doesn't even ask you to pay anything, if the claim is being processed by insurance. You can also request a detailed bill to see the specific charges. If you have insurance, they'll subtract insurance payments and a contractual amount (amount they agreed to be paid per their contract with the insurance company). If it's self pay, it will normally be discounted as well - often 40-60%, and on a high amount, may include a request to talk to a financial counselor rather than stating 'PAY THIS AMOUNT'. I'm sure there are some exceptions for hospitals with less than ideal ethical standards, but it's unusual for a patient to be billed total charges.


Did you read my original comment?

Just to put that US$800,000 into perspective, if the boy had spent 10 days in ICU and the remaining 30 days on a "regular" ward at the Vancouver General Hospital, the total bill would have been CDN$242,550 (which is approximately US$182,000) and if he had spent the entire 40 days in ICU the total bill would have been CDN$546,600 (which is approximately US$410,000).

On the other hand, according to Walgreens, the cost of Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis/Whooping Cough vaccination is $63.99 per dose.

Of course, if you don't support vaccinations then you really don't worry about the cost savings because you are much more worried about false statistics deliberately skewed and distorted in order to make your case than you are about the lives of your children.

PS - Don't be surprised to see the insurance company reject a goodly proportion of the family's claim on the basis that the family "deliberately failed to take known and proven preventative measures to the point where the injury equates to deliberately self-inflicted damage" and or "deliberately concealed relevant information in order to fraudulently obtain medical insurance".

Perhaps I missed it... but I thought you commented that in BC the family wouldn't owe anything, without other detail. If so, my apology.
 
OK. Whatever. I'd prefer to discuss what we actually know, rather than adding (making up) a detail for 'simplicity'. There's no reason to 'assume' the patient got a bill for that amount - it's more likely they didn't.

I completely agree, the only way that the family found out about the $800,000 hospital bill is because the hospital didn't send them one.

No, this is how medical billing is done. You get a statement that includes the total charges, less any payments and adjustment, and an amount you owe. Often the original statement doesn't even ask you to pay anything, if the claim is being processed by insurance. You can also request a detailed bill to see the specific charges. If you have insurance, they'll subtract insurance payments and a contractual amount (amount they agreed to be paid per their contract with the insurance company). If it's self pay, it will normally be discounted as well - often 40-60%, and on a high amount, may include a request to talk to a financial counselor rather than stating 'PAY THIS AMOUNT'. I'm sure there are some exceptions for hospitals with less than ideal ethical standards, but it's unusual for a patient to be billed total charges.

This, somehow, changes the amount that the hospital DID charge?

So, you are also telling me that hospitals cheat insurance companies by sending out grossly (66% to 140%) inflated bills when they expect that the insurance company will be picking up the tab.

OK, so the solution for the insurance companies is to refuse to pay any part of the bill, let the hospital bill the whole amount to the client, assist the client with their negotiations to have the bill paid, lend the client the full amount of the bill that they actually do have to pay, then payout on the insurance policy directly to the client (after doing cross-accounting so that the actual cheque is for $0.00 and it is stapled to the loan agreement marked "Paid In Full".

Perhaps I missed it... but I thought you commented that in BC the family wouldn't owe anything, without other detail. If so, my apology.

A BC (permanent) resident family wouldn't have received a bill at all. (missing detail inserted in bold face)

If THIS family (not even being temporary residents of BC) had flown the child up to BC and had all of the medical care done at VGH, they would not have been covered by BC MSP and the bill that they received would have been (pretty much) as I calculated it (and that bill would have been for [roughly 22% to 65% of what the US bill was for exactly the same level of care).
 
Trying to roll this into the vaccine/anti-vaccine argument isnt really appropriate. Id bet good money that there are a LOT of adults...perhaps even on this site that cant recall when they got their last tetanus booster.
 
As I stated, the pro-vaccination worshippers NEVER debate. Rather, they mindlessly rant and desperately try to divert from the topic. Why? That is the easy, ignorant thing to do.

Medical mistakes kill over a quarter of a million people in the USA alone per year. Yet people like you worship everyone and everything about the medical profession. If they mistakenly kill your child or your loved one in their endless "oops, sorry we killed your relative" the blame likely would rightly be shared by you.

Of human caused avoidable deaths, THE #1 killer in the USA are doctors and nurses. 500% more wrongful deaths than all gun deaths. 500% more wrongful deaths than all auto accidents. But you worship the corporate medical industry and government agencies they buy, don't you? The #1 killer in the USA is who you most trust. It can't get any more stupid than that.

It really does blow my mind just how willingly people bow to the government deity. This deity, that, by all standard measures is about as inefficient and self-serving as any divine creature before it. We take the same approach that (If I read you correctly) you and your wife take. We too were lucky enough to find a family doctor that was willing to vaccinate our children one vaccination at a time, and only offering another one when we, or child were Asymptomatic from the previous vaccination. We thought this was a logical approach, cautious, and in keeping with the benefits of vaccination, but at the same time paying strict attention to the safety claims made mostly by people who really had no idea what the risks were, why they were risky to begin with, and how to divert or mitigate that risk by simply adopting a one vaccination at a time approach. All 4 of my children are healthy (knock on wood) and so to are me and my wife. We also let our kids pick their noses and eat it, when they were little.

I bet most on this forum don't even know that by allowing your kids to do this, you actually boost their immune system 300% compared to other children who do not do this, during those formative years! I know it sounds gross, but it happens to be true!


I think people mis-read you to be someone who is some kind of terrible parent with your position, and I just wanted to chime in and say that I respect your cautious approach to anything government. You know, a government that has a history of using its own citizens as laboratory rats!


Tim-
 
I completely agree, the only way that the family found out about the $800,000 hospital bill is because the hospital didn't send them one.

Again, no idea where you're trying to go with this. The article doesn't even say they obtained the charges from the family. I would have assumed it came from the CDC, but it doesn't say that either.

This, somehow, changes the amount that the hospital DID charge?

So, you are also telling me that hospitals cheat insurance companies by sending out grossly (66% to 140%) inflated bills when they expect that the insurance company will be picking up the tab.

OK, so the solution for the insurance companies is to refuse to pay any part of the bill, let the hospital bill the whole amount to the client, assist the client with their negotiations to have the bill paid, lend the client the full amount of the bill that they actually do have to pay, then payout on the insurance policy directly to the client (after doing cross-accounting so that the actual cheque is for $0.00 and it is stapled to the loan agreement marked "Paid In Full".

Health care billing and payment is complicated. Providers (hospitals and doctors) do establish charges for services, but this is rarely what is paid.

Insurance companies are normally contracted with healthcare providers, so they don't pay full charges. With government payers, there's a rate determined by statute/regulation. A non-contracted provider will normally negotiate a specific case rate agreement on a large claim like this, including the amount the patient will owe. However technically - it's all due. If the insurance isn't contracted, doesn't have a government designated rate, and doesn't negotiate a case rate, the rest is the patient responsibility. (This doesn't happen often).

Self pay works a little differently, and is regulated by state, but a providers normally establish a self pay rate - less than charges. In cases of large bills like this, most hospitals have a charity process to take care of most (if not all) of the balance. It used to be that a private insurance plan could pay the patient directly and let them be responsible for payment but its unusual, and I'm not even sure if it's allowed under the ACA.

In any case, there's virtually always a differences between charges (the amount charged) and the amount due from the patient. Again, the point of the article is to highlight how costly the care was to provide, given how it was completely avoidable.
 
Trying to roll this into the vaccine/anti-vaccine argument isnt really appropriate. Id bet good money that there are a LOT of adults...perhaps even on this site that cant recall when they got their last tetanus booster.

Had one 3 years ago. You can get one after injury...his parents refused it after his injury which is neglect
 
Yes, there are risks but society can impose all sorts of rules which some won’t like. As people win the fight for universal healthcare, they will bring along with it more imposition of requirements on lifestyle and behavior.

Yes, the fraction of a percent of side effects of vaccines are societies acceptance of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Be careful what one imposes on others because they are also working to impose on you.

This case wouldn’t be an issue if the parents accepted the full costs of their decision, but insurance and other payers are liable for parents decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're talking about injecting chemicals into the body without consent there's no way around this argument . It is tyranny. It begs the question who owns your body you or the state?. It would seem to me that all Libertarians and Republicans would vote against mandates on vaccinations for this reason. I am a Democrat Progressive etcetera but I do have libertarian leanings and civil rights issues.
 
Had one 3 years ago. You can get one after injury...his parents refused it after his injury which is neglect
Thats when MOST people get them...after they have been injured and the docs ask when was the last time you had a tetanus shot and the people respond...I dont know.
 
I agree too many are given at one time. My kids are getting them spread out.

But being anti vaccine is dangerous idiocy that is condemning people to pain and torture. It's the same hideous Bs as Christian's denying children medical care.

I'm not anti-vaccine per se but doctors are giving out vaccines like candy and a one-size-fits-all fashion and I don't believe that is in their best interest
 
We're talking about injecting chemicals into the body without consent there's no way around this argument . It is tyranny. It begs the question who owns your body you or the state?. It would seem to me that all Libertarians and Republicans would vote against mandates on vaccinations for this reason. I am a Democrat Progressive etcetera but I do have libertarian leanings and civil rights issues.

There are some things that make sense. For example...it makes sense to either require students in a public school be vaccinated or that they be allowed to participate in a charter school and NOT the public school system. Others dont make sense...like the flu shots. Or the anthrax routines we were required to undergo due to our service in the ME.
 
We're talking about injecting chemicals into the body without consent there's no way around this argument . It is tyranny. It begs the question who owns your body you or the state?. It would seem to me that all Libertarians and Republicans would vote against mandates on vaccinations for this reason. I am a Democrat Progressive etcetera but I do have libertarian leanings and civil rights issues.

I'm generally in favor of there being alternatives to government mandates, but you may not like them. Requiring students to be vaccinated to participate in public school seems fine to me. Having financial repercussions, like the parents are likely not going to suffer make sense to me as well.

If you are ok with society deciding you should pay a different tax rate because of what you earn, or perhaps even collecting taxes at all, you are already down the road of tyranny. Society gets to decide those things, majority rule, etcetera... If a couple of people may die due to some rare side effects but at the same time protecting millions, society appreciates your understanding.
 
I'm not anti-vaccine per se but doctors are giving out vaccines like candy and a one-size-fits-all fashion and I don't believe that is in their best interest

Are you mixing up vaccines with antibiotics? No physician gives out vaccines like candy.
 
It really does blow my mind just how willingly people bow to the government deity. This deity, that, by all standard measures is about as inefficient and self-serving as any divine creature before it. We take the same approach that (If I read you correctly) you and your wife take. We too were lucky enough to find a family doctor that was willing to vaccinate our children one vaccination at a time, and only offering another one when we, or child were Asymptomatic from the previous vaccination. We thought this was a logical approach, cautious, and in keeping with the benefits of vaccination, but at the same time paying strict attention to the safety claims made mostly by people who really had no idea what the risks were, why they were risky to begin with, and how to divert or mitigate that risk by simply adopting a one vaccination at a time approach. All 4 of my children are healthy (knock on wood) and so to are me and my wife. We also let our kids pick their noses and eat it, when they were little.

I bet most on this forum don't even know that by allowing your kids to do this, you actually boost their immune system 300% compared to other children who do not do this, during those formative years! I know it sounds gross, but it happens to be true!


I think people mis-read you to be someone who is some kind of terrible parent with your position, and I just wanted to chime in and say that I respect your cautious approach to anything government. You know, a government that has a history of using its own citizens as laboratory rats!


Tim-

There is a difference between "sequential vaccinations administered because of a cautious approach to the potential hazards of multiple simultaneous vaccinations" and "refusal to vaccinate due to an ill informed and irrational belief that the hazards of having any vaccine administered are greater than the hazards of not having vaccinations done at all".

While I don't agree with you as to the risk level of multiple simultaneous vaccinations and might no do the same myself, I don't - in the least - disagree with your personal decision as to how the vaccinations should be administered. If there are unnecessary hazards associated with multiple simultaneous vaccinations you mitigate against them whilst still not increasing the hazards to your children by totally refusing to have them vaccinated.
 
Again, no idea where you're trying to go with this. The article doesn't even say they obtained the charges from the family. I would have assumed it came from the CDC, but it doesn't say that either.

So, since you don't know the source of the billing information, you utterly reject the possibility that it might have come from the family involved. And you base that rejection on the fact that it could have come from some other source, which you have no information that it did do.

Health care billing and payment is complicated. Providers (hospitals and doctors) do establish charges for services, but this is rarely what is paid.

So, is what you are saying something like "Providers (hospitals and doctors) send out bogus bills in the hopes that the people they send them to will be so stupid that they will actually pay them rather than pay the providers what they actually charge for their services."?

Insurance companies are normally contracted with healthcare providers, so they don't pay full charges. With government payers, there's a rate determined by statute/regulation. A non-contracted provider will normally negotiate a specific case rate agreement on a large claim like this, including the amount the patient will owe. However technically - it's all due. If the insurance isn't contracted, doesn't have a government designated rate, and doesn't negotiate a case rate, the rest is the patient responsibility. (This doesn't happen often).

In other words, "Providers (hospitals and doctors) send out inflated bills in the hopes that the people they send them to will be dumb enough to pay them."?

Self pay works a little differently, and is regulated by state, but a providers normally establish a self pay rate - less than charges.[/quote]

At LESS than cost? AT cost? At cost PLUS REASONABLE profit? At cost PLUS AS BIG A PROFIT as they think that they can tack on?

In cases of large bills like
this, most hospitals have a charity process to take care of most (if not all) of the balance. It used to be that a private insurance plan could pay the patient directly and let them be responsible for payment but its unusual, and I'm not even sure if it's allowed under the ACA.

Wouldn't it be better if the providers just billed for the amount that they expected to get paid rather than over-billing some people so that they could subsidize others?

In any case, there's virtually always a differences between charges (the amount charged) and the amount due from the patient. Again, the point of the article is to highlight how costly the care was to provide, given how it was completely avoidable.

And an analysis of the responses supporting the hospital's position highlights the fact that people simply don't care (until they get the bills themselves [at which point they squeal like stuck pigs]).
 
We're talking about injecting chemicals into the body without consent there's no way around this argument . It is tyranny. It begs the question who owns your body you or the state?.

You have somewhat of a point.

Would you be OK with a law that required the parents who refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated to reimburse society for 100% of the consequential expenses of that decision, with that liability to reimburse NOT being subject to cancellation for any reason and enforceable by sequestration of any and all money due to those parents from the government as well as a mandatory 30% garnishment of gross income (regardless of type or source)?

In other words if they had to take personal responsibility for their actions.

It would seem to me that all Libertarians and Republicans would vote against mandates on vaccinations for this reason. I am a Democrat Progressive etcetera but I do have libertarian leanings and civil rights issues.

Do you think that they would do so if they were required to register as a Vax-Resister and had to (collectively) reimburse society for 100% of the consequential expenses of that decision, with that liability to reimburse NOT being subject to cancellation for any reason and enforceable by sequestration of any and all money due to those parents from the government as well as a mandatory 30% garnishment of gross income (regardless of type or source)?

In other words, if they had to take personal responsibility for their actions?
 
So, since you don't know the source of the billing information, you utterly reject the possibility that it might have come from the family involved. And you base that rejection on the fact that it could have come from some other source, which you have no information that it did do.

Correction --- I don't know the source of the information and didn't claim to do so. I actually said that I don't know, and pointed out that the article didn't give the information. You assume it came from the family and utterly reject the possibility it came from somewhere else, including the people interviewed for the story.
 
Are you mixing up vaccines with antibiotics? No physician gives out vaccines like candy.

Oh yeah, I have seen candy dishes in waiting room laden with vaccines...….. :roll:
 
So, is what you are saying something like "Providers (hospitals and doctors) send out bogus bills in the hopes that the people they send them to will be so stupid that they will actually pay them rather than pay the providers what they actually charge for their services."?

In other words, "Providers (hospitals and doctors) send out inflated bills in the hopes that the people they send them to will be dumb enough to pay them."?

Self pay works a little differently, and is regulated by state, but a providers normally establish a self pay rate - less than charges.

At LESS than cost? AT cost? At cost PLUS REASONABLE profit? At cost PLUS AS BIG A PROFIT as they think that they can tack on?

In cases of large bills like

Wouldn't it be better if the providers just billed for the amount that they expected to get paid rather than over-billing some people so that they could subsidize others?

And an analysis of the responses supporting the hospital's position highlights the fact that people simply don't care (until they get the bills themselves [at which point they squeal like stuck pigs]).

A very cynical person could probably take some of your position, although I have no idea why you are getting so aggressive with me, when I'm attempting to explain the reality of how it works.

In reality, there is a certain amount of inflation that goes on in the charges. Unfortunately, it's part of how the system developed, and is currently a necessary part of doing business. Contracts and insurance codes have built up around it. No, providers don't expect people to pay the full balance - they expect insurance companies to negotiate a rate, and self pay patients to pay a rate - yes, costs plus a reasonable profit margin (which in most cases is rolled right back into capital purchases).
 
Thats when MOST people get them...after they have been injured and the docs ask when was the last time you had a tetanus shot and the people respond...I dont know.

Definitely true that nobody can remember their last tetanus shot. And that response is usually followed by "Lets just give you a booster shot today then".

There has always been the yardstick of every 10 years for a tetanus shot but I remember there was a research showing it wasn't needed for 30 years. If that is the case then the every 10 years is kind of how motor oil companies try to get you to change you oil sooner than needed.
 
No, I’m not cool with it...one has zero to do with the other

So, you want to take kids from their parents for 'negligence' when it suits you, but when a parent is negligent and takes their children on a perilous trek across the desert and hires a drug dealing coyote to guide them who is about as likely to take them as he is to shoot them in the head, use them as drug mules, rape and kill them, or sell them into sex slavery, then all of a sudden government taking kids from their parents is bad.
 
I'm not anti-vaccine per se but doctors are giving out vaccines like candy and a one-size-fits-all fashion and I don't believe that is in their best interest

Hence why I spread ours out.
 
So, you want to take kids from their parents for 'negligence' when it suits you, but when a parent is negligent and takes their children on a perilous trek across the desert and hires a drug dealing coyote to guide them who is about as likely to take them as he is to shoot them in the head, use them as drug mules, rape and kill them, or sell them into sex slavery, then all of a sudden government taking kids from their parents is bad.

Not when it suits...me taking children on a trek like that is to save them from certain death and most of them cannot afford a coyote....not that you would understand what that is like sitting in your living room never missing a meal in your life.

The caravans are people who do not have the money to make the journey paying 10k, they are people in danger. Before making stupid comments try walking in their shoes, there is a difference in circumstances you cannot change and outright neglect of your children by deliberately making them susceptible to deadly diseases like measles and polio.
 
Back
Top Bottom