mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Bankrupt Healthcare
The Most Expensive Free Health Care in the World
Features Icon
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    As the LAT reports, “Hospitals and health insurers have reaped a financial windfall from the
    2014 rollout of the federal health law, even beyond what was expected.” The losers are the insured who have seen their premiums increase, the uninsured who have seen access to care decline and the taxpayers who are footing the bill for setting up the exchanges and subsidizing the insured. Sheer madness!

  • Boritz

    “The Obama Administration has released new regulations requiring…………….”

    This thing is not going to be any less volatile than the tax code. A different 1040 every year and a different health care system more often than that.

  • Corlyss

    “marginal cost-shifting in a dysfunctional system.”
    This has been true at least since the generous feds required hospitals who took fed $$$ to provide emergency services for people who couldn’t pay. The fed $$$ was not to pay for the free-loaders; it was if the hospitals took fed $$$ for any purpose, e.g. medicare, Medicaid, etc. The rest of the insured world and the hospitals picked up the cost of the free-loaders. This was a fact deliberately obscured or unreported during the alleged public debate about health care in this country. When I tried to explain this to my liberal friends, I got the hands-over-ears counters of “I’m not listening. I’m not listening.”

    • FriendlyGoat

      I’m willing to listen to you recount that fact. I just don’t understand why you seem to think that “we, the people” would want hospitals to turn away emergency cases at the door. The feds did that in our name.

      • Ulysses4033

        Don’t think that’s the argument he’s making. He’s commenting on the federal government’s continuous encroaching into the state, local, and private sectors via federal taxpayer dollars and the strings attached thereto. This encroachment is primarily the love child of the statists on the Left, but has been aided and abetted by a GOP eager to ride the chimerical “free federal money” gravy train on whose rails too many of us believe we can ride without consequences. That $18+ trillion dollar debt will be the source of many unpleasant consequences, but why would “we the people” decline to take responsibility for all the problems we generate?

        • FriendlyGoat

          I don’t think Corlyss was making my argument either. Although, I don’t think Republicans relished the idea of film crews taping the refusal of a hospital to provide emergency care after asking payment-ability questions. Once upon a time conservatism could only be sold in this country under a veneer of “compassionate conservatism”. If the veneer totally vanishes, the people would revolt.

          • Corlyss

            Friendly, you’re pulling out all the old canards about “compassionate conservatism.” Good for you! Republicans leave the bleeding pieces of earth to die; Republicans are going to push granny off the cliff. How tiresome of you! I know you’ve got more imagination than that.

            The left always wins the “compassion” Oscars because it controls or has controlled the federal fisc for 80+ years. It can spend all the money and 18 trillion it borrows on buying votes for itself. Republicans think they can win by being more efficient and effective with the public’s money, but in the end, the voters will always beg and whine for more and more services that someone else, never them, has to pay for. It’s taken 30 years to get it thru the voters’ thick skulls that the government’s money is THEIR money and if they want more services they will have to pay more in taxes. That debate has been raging for at least the last 21 years, and it is still undecided because your champions on the left are never honest with the public about who pays. The left consistently loses the increased tax argument. The right only intermittently wins the fewer services argument.

        • Corlyss

          That’s exactly my point, Ulysses.

          PS I’m a she.

      • Corlyss

        “I just don’t understand why you seem to think that “we, the people” would want hospitals to turn away emergency cases at the door.”

        Typical leftie trick of changing the subject. The subject is who pays. Of course poor people in emergency circumstances should be taken care of, but if the government is going to require it, the government should have to pay. They don’t pay. They make the hospitals and the insured pay. That’s an unabashed, naked transfer of wealth, period. Charities used to do that kind of assuming the burden; but the government detests competition and has been trying to run charities out of business for decades. The discussions about reducing or eliminating the tax exemption for charitable contributions is only the latest effort.

        Let me be more specific. What is wrong with this picture? “Let’s you and him share . . . ” That’s the “generous” federal government’s mantra when these kinds of programs come up. “Let’s” implies the speaker is going to assume responsibility in a joint action. Here’s the joint action: “I the federal government order you the hospital to take care of this needy individual out of your profits.” What the feds repeatedly do is use fed funds to compel others to adopt blatant orders to spend their own money on third parties. Under any rational system, this would be considered a seizure of one person’s property by the state for the benefit of a third party. They are called “unfunded mandates,” which should be considered unconstitutional, but as long as the government can coerce behavior in such a manner, the abused parties usually decide they can’t win in such a fight (from many standpoints), so they don’t fight. It’s abhorrent system based on coercion, misdirection, fraud, and lies.

  • Fat_Man

    My favorite stupid hospital trick is that all hospitals maintain a list of prices for their services that they would like to be paid, but never are, unless a solvent patient is so naive as to be uninsured and pay cash without first negotiating a discount. Insured patients receive (typically substantial) discounts negotiated by their insurers, and Medicare and Medicaid pay even less.

    At the end of the year, the Hospitals account for all unpaid for services at the full retail rate and proudly announce that they have given away X million dollars worth of free care. Every one is supposed to clap and cheer for their generosity. In fact, if the services had been paid for at regular insured rates, the hospitals would have been paid far less than the amount of their write off.

    Obamacare was intended to reduce the amount of unpaid for care the hospitals give away while padding their bottom lines.

    The fact is that there is no such thing in this country and this day and age as a non-profit hospital. They should be made to pay taxes at regular corporate rates.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service