• 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!

Trump signs order that aims to reveal real health care costs

Any information is more helpful than no information as long as it is understood for what it is. :)

True.

You might find "Canadian Hospital Rates" interesting. There is no column for "Insured Residents" - mainly because having a whole column of $0.00 looks rather silly. An "Un-Insured Resident" would be someone on a temporary residence permit (like a student or someone on a time limited work visa). [You might want to note that those are "inclusive" rates and that there are no additional charges for lab work, doctors, drugs, toilet paper, "kleenex", breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, disposable syringes, laundry, IV fluids, bandages, etc., etc., etc. like there are in many American hospitals.]
 
True.

You might find "Canadian Hospital Rates" interesting. There is no column for "Insured Residents" - mainly because having a whole column of $0.00 looks rather silly. An "Un-Insured Resident" would be someone on a temporary residence permit (like a student or someone on a time limited work visa). [You might want to note that those are "inclusive" rates and that there are no additional charges for lab work, doctors, drugs, toilet paper, "kleenex", breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, disposable syringes, laundry, IV fluids, bandages, etc., etc., etc. like there are in many American hospitals.]

You forgot the $100 for parking.
 
A claim made, if I read correctly, is that having rates available will cause folks to make wiser choices among hospitals. If I'm not mistaken, folks who show up in a hospital's emergency room go there because it's nearest, not because it's cheapest. Folks showing up in hospital surgical suites are there because their surgeon practices there, not because it's the cheapest of several. It's difficult to see how the information about hospital costs will result in large savings through consumer choice.
 
Trump signs order that aims to reveal real health care costs



It's about time someone had the balls to do this and honestly I'm not sure why it wasn't done a long time ago but most of us can guess why.


I also love the argument that insurers are using that posting prices will drive up prices. As if free market competition has ever done anything but drive prices down. Perhaps some of these insurers have some old executives from the former Bell telephone company.

These choices for medical patients will go away with Medicare for all.
 
A claim made, if I read correctly, is that having rates available will cause folks to make wiser choices among hospitals. If I'm not mistaken, folks who show up in a hospital's emergency room go there because it's nearest, not because it's cheapest. Folks showing up in hospital surgical suites are there because their surgeon practices there, not because it's the cheapest of several. It's difficult to see how the information about hospital costs will result in large savings through consumer choice.

Yep, especially in emergency situations which don't allow for time to make those kind of decisions. If one suffers a heart attack there isn't going to be the time to shop around hospitals and direct the EMTs to drop you off there; worse still if it's extends the time to get you there.
 
I agree we have a major problem with healthcare costs. Something politicians aren't trying to deal with, thanks to the healthcare lobbies. Instead it seems our politicians keep trying to figure out how to pay more via taxpayer dollars.

Here is an interesting "Real Doctor Reacts to 'Adam Ruins Healthcare.'"



IMO there are lots of things we need to be dealing with regarding the entire Healthcare Industry, from Hospitals through Pharmaceutical companies to Insurance companies.

Just throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem is not the simple solution.


Good video. I especially liked his point about plastic surgery pricing being consumer driven due to the transparency of the costs, as compared to other aspects of healthcare. I think that’s the biggest shortcoming of our current system.
 
LOL. Sounds like every single politician, doesn't it?

To some degree, of course some are worse than others. Unfortunately for the USA, you've chosen the biggest scam artist in the country to lead you.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that's not going to end well.
 
You forgot the $100 for parking.

That would be quite the stay. Here on the wet coast you can usually park within a 5 minute walk of any hospital outside of the downtown core for free. Parking in hospital lot is $2-$3/hour at our neighbourhood hospital.
 
Yep, especially in emergency situations which don't allow for time to make those kind of decisions. If one suffers a heart attack there isn't going to be the time to shop around hospitals and direct the EMTs to drop you off there; worse still if it's extends the time to get you there.

Yup! If what I've said is correct, the publishing of costs will not put very much pressure on hospitals to reduce them. The public will still do what they do now in selecting a hospital.

Regards.
 
That would be quite the stay. Here on the wet coast you can usually park within a 5 minute walk of any hospital outside of the downtown core for free. Parking in hospital lot is $2-$3/hour at our neighbourhood hospital.

At least in Ontario and Quebec they charge ludicrous amounts for parking.
 
That would be quite the stay. Here on the wet coast you can usually park within a 5 minute walk of any hospital outside of the downtown core for free. Parking in hospital lot is $2-$3/hour at our neighbourhood hospital.

Obviously VGH is not your neighbourhood hospital.
 
Indeed I did.

Here are the parking rates as published by Vancouver Coastal Health.

I have to admit that that $66.75 per month is extortionate.

Montreal General:
24H RATES
0 - 30 min FREE
31 - 60 min $12
61 - 90 min $16
91 - 240 min $22
241 - 1440 min (24 h) $24

There is also $70/month. It is still a lot say you need to go to the hospital only twice a month you can either pay $22/visit (there is no way you are spending less than 2 hours there) with the daily rates or $35/visit with the monthly. It is ridiculous.
 
At least in Ontario and Quebec they charge ludicrous amounts for parking.

Well the short term parking rates at Montreal General Hospital certainly aren't all that good, but $70.00/m isn't all that far off $66.75/m that Vancouver General Hospital charges.

And, Children's General Hospital in Los Angeles (although its daily rate of US$10.00 [roughly CDN 13.50] IS lower than VGH's CDN$14.25) charges US$125/m which works out to around CDN$165/m for parking.

However, since I haven't surveyed 100% of all American hospitals (and 100% of all Canadian hospitals) those are only rough guesses as to which country gouges people the most for hospital parking.
 
Good video. I especially liked his point about plastic surgery pricing being consumer driven due to the transparency of the costs, as compared to other aspects of healthcare. I think that’s the biggest shortcoming of our current system.

Cosmetic surgery is 'consumer driven' because the consumer has to pay for it. Transparency facilitates that but it's hard to imagine the transparency is the motivating element.

If you pay the same thing out-of-pocket no matter which provider you go to, then knowing the difference in the prices those providers have negotiated with your insurer isn't likely to motivate your behavior. You might even be pushed by that knowledge into choosing the highest-priced provider, possibly on the assumption that it commands a higher price because it's higher-quality (a perception that might be reinforced since that higher price is probably correlated with the provider's name recognition and prestige).

Transparency alone doesn't suddenly attract people to lower-priced options.
 
Montreal General:
24H RATES
0 - 30 min FREE
31 - 60 min $12
61 - 90 min $16
91 - 240 min $22
241 - 1440 min (24 h) $24

There is also $70/month. It is still a lot say you need to go to the hospital only twice a month you can either pay $22/visit (there is no way you are spending less than 2 hours there) with the daily rates or $35/visit with the monthly. It is ridiculous.

Oikes.
 
We're all looking forward to shopping for the best deals while having a coronary.
 
We're all looking forward to shopping for the best deals while having a coronary.

Nah, just tell the truth....You libs would love to just deny access, and send the person home with an aspirin....
 
Cosmetic surgery is 'consumer driven' because the consumer has to pay for it. Transparency facilitates that but it's hard to imagine the transparency is the motivating element.

If you pay the same thing out-of-pocket no matter which provider you go to, then knowing the difference in the prices those providers have negotiated with your insurer isn't likely to motivate your behavior. You might even be pushed by that knowledge into choosing the highest-priced provider, possibly on the assumption that it commands a higher price because it's higher-quality (a perception that might be reinforced since that higher price is probably correlated with the provider's name recognition and prestige).

Transparency alone doesn't suddenly attract people to lower-priced options.

Yes, the point about being consumer driven is that the consumer pays for the procedures directly, and demands transparency in pricing to make their buying decisions. That’s the part that’s missing now. The consumer has no idea what anything actually costs, just what they pay in premiums, co-pays, etc.
 
The way things have been done, healthcare is pretty much like listening to a used car salesman saying, "Trust me!".

It won't be long until costs for procedures are published side by side on line so consumers can make informed purchasing decisions.

The immense cathedrals of health that have the marbled edifice set ups will have to justify their existences.

There will likely be a range of choices from which to select your care much like there are a range of outlets from which to select your clothing, lawnmowers and BBQ Grills.

This is long overdue!


It will be quite some time, if ever, before that happens.

I have absolutely no idea how the regulations that evolve from the EO are going to look like.’’

Of course, since the transactions are usually between insurance companies and hospitals, and the patient has no say, or interest in them, it’s hard to figure out how to square the circle.

And since retail prices are only charged to the uninsured, it’s hard to see how that will be affected either.

However, the insurance industry’s warning is noteworthy. Particular in the face of the growing national trend to merge hospitals into regional chains, which in turn drive cost up in regional markets by creating health care monopolies.

In an industry where transparency is viewed as a threat and the tendency for each of the business entities in the higharchy of oligopolies is to compete for revenue share and thus drives costs up.

Since almost no consumers ever ask the price of health care, and are as likely as not to fail to understand (or even look at) the pricing that may be out there.

BTW, retail pricing is already required. That was a change made under the ACA.

Funny though, the pharma lobbyist who runs HHS for Trump managed to keep the drug companies insulated.
 
Cosmetic surgery is 'consumer driven' because the consumer has to pay for it. Transparency facilitates that but it's hard to imagine the transparency is the motivating element.

If you pay the same thing out-of-pocket no matter which provider you go to, then knowing the difference in the prices those providers have negotiated with your insurer isn't likely to motivate your behavior. You might even be pushed by that knowledge into choosing the highest-priced provider, possibly on the assumption that it commands a higher price because it's higher-quality (a perception that might be reinforced since that higher price is probably correlated with the provider's name recognition and prestige).

Transparency alone doesn't suddenly attract people to lower-priced options.

Particularly in an industry that is an inelastic commodity.

No one asks the price.

And as long as insurance companies actually pay the bills, people will have little or no incentive to care about costs.
 
Trump signs order that aims to reveal real health care costs



It's about time someone had the balls to do this and honestly I'm not sure why it wasn't done a long time ago but most of us can guess why.


I also love the argument that insurers are using that posting prices will drive up prices. As if free market competition has ever done anything but drive prices down. Perhaps some of these insurers have some old executives from the former Bell telephone company.

Not that he will ever read a single page of any of the results anyway.
 
It will be quite some time, if ever, before that happens.

I have absolutely no idea how the regulations that evolve from the EO are going to look like.’’

Of course, since the transactions are usually between insurance companies and hospitals, and the patient has no say, or interest in them, it’s hard to figure out how to square the circle.

And since retail prices are only charged to the uninsured, it’s hard to see how that will be affected either.

However, the insurance industry’s warning is noteworthy. Particular in the face of the growing national trend to merge hospitals into regional chains, which in turn drive cost up in regional markets by creating health care monopolies.

In an industry where transparency is viewed as a threat and the tendency for each of the business entities in the higharchy of oligopolies is to compete for revenue share and thus drives costs up.

Since almost no consumers ever ask the price of health care, and are as likely as not to fail to understand (or even look at) the pricing that may be out there.

BTW, retail pricing is already required. That was a change made under the ACA.

Funny though, the pharma lobbyist who runs HHS for Trump managed to keep the drug companies insulated.

The simple solution is to charge ALL the people who pay the hospital bills the "retail" rate.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the hospitals can't give out "Loyalty Cards" so that volume payers for the same services get "rebates". I mean if you set your "volume before rebate" at (for example "two pregnancies per year" why everyone who got to pay the hospital bills for more than two pregnancies per year would bet the same percentage rebate on the total of the bills that they paid for each pregnancy. What could be fairer than that? I mean all that any individual (who didn't have medical insurance) would have to do would be to get pregnant three or more times per year and they would then get the same percentage "rebate" as any insurance company that paid the hospital bills for three or more of their customers that got pregnant in any given year.

You see, everyone would be treated "equally" under that program - wouldn't they?
 
Back
Top Bottom