A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by forapurpose on Sunday September 30, 2018 @05:52PM (#18108638)

My concern is the patients, not the doctors; it's hard for me to see them as victims in the U.S. The awful health care system is their creation to a significant degree, and one which many of them protect. They get paid very well, often via absurd billing practices, running up bills on unnecessary treatment, pushing drugs in which they have a financial interest, etc. If I understand correctly, they restrict the number of doctors to a degree that it denies availability to people who need it, AFAICT to constrain supply and drive up their incomes. That they have to give back a little - something people in every walk of life have to do - is not high on my list of concerns.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by MBCook on Sunday September 30, 2018 @07:06PM (#18108955)

I didn’t create the system, I was born into it. By the time I was old enough to vote it was far too established for radical changes to be easy to make.

From what I’ve read/seen the system seems to be almost entirely a creation of unintended consequences of Congress, businesses, and well-meaning insurance companies. Sure there are bad actors but I don’t think they created the system, They only take it vantage of what was created (again, possibly unintentionally) by others.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by forapurpose on Sunday September 30, 2018 @09:40PM (#18109439)

> unintended consequences of Congress, businesses, and well-meaning insurance companies

They invest a large amount in very smart people predicting the consequences and then in lobbying (and bribing) politicians, and in supporting public information campaigns, to pass the laws that provide their desired consequences. For them to portray themselves as innocent and naive, if they do, would be cynical and absurd. It always seems to work out they make a lot of money, but probably unintentionally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by MBCook on Monday October 01, 2018 @09:03AM (#18112173)

Now they do because it’s a huge business. But as the foundations of our system were being setup I don’t think that was really the case. With the possible exception of the AMA fighting nationalized healthcare.

There doesn’t seem to have been a large investigation into the consequences of allowing healthcare coverage to be given to employees without counting as salary. That was one of the core sins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by forapurpose on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:39AM (#18113656)

> But as the foundations of our system were being setup I don’t think that was really the case.

Why do you think that? Is there something I could read? Certainly lobbying and financial incentives to politicians have existed forever.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by arcticbull on Sunday September 30, 2018 @07:55PM (#18109130)

Demand change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by MBCook on Sunday September 30, 2018 @08:09PM (#18109186)

You think I and tens of millions of voters DON’T?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by nradov on Sunday September 30, 2018 @08:43PM (#18109265)

The number of doctors is primarily limited by the amount of federal government funding for residency slots.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by maxerickson on Sunday September 30, 2018 @09:28PM (#18109400)

Hospitals have billions of dollars of net income...they could very easily invest in residency slots.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by forapurpose on Sunday September 30, 2018 @09:40PM (#18109440)

Would the AMA have some influence on that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A bipartisan plan to end surprise ER bills by nradov on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:04AM (#18110166)

Only to the extent that they can lobby Congress like anyone else. I don't think the AMA has done any lobbying lately against expanding residency funding.

[ Parent | on HN ]