The cost of healthcare

It was pretty major surgery undertaken by a friend of Fred Reed:

The time frame was March 13 to March 21. The exchange rate around this time period was about 17.5 which would make the USD cost app. $27,000.”

Wondering what this would cost in the US, I googled around and found things like this:

“For patients not covered by health insurance, valve replacement surgery typically costs from about $80,000-$200,000 or more with an average, according to an American Heart Association report[1] , of $164,238, not including the doctor fee. A surgeon fee can add $5,000 or more to the final bill.”

This was only for the valve replacement. The price for a simple bypass in the US runs to $50,000 to $70,000 at the lower end. What the bypasses would add to the replacement, I don’t know, and shudder to think.

The huge difference in price between American and other care occurs in almost everything.

Transfer that to the UK – obviously, we have the NHS and 18 month waiting lists. Some of you clever Trevors have it sorted, you go private, you have your BUPA or whatever, all is well. You can grin at this. Most have queues but also, near free care.

Who is paying? Taxpayer of course. Which taxpayers? Well obviously the indigenous but also anyone who has paid in at some time, including foreigners.

Therefore, our beef is not with any of these, the ones who’ve paid their dues, but with the freeloaders. Where to find them? Well, in the ghettos of course and at demonstrations.

Round ’em up, bundle them off. This is not racist, anti-foreigner, it’s anti-freeloader.

8 comments for “The cost of healthcare

  1. Gregory Tingey
    December 13, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    Fair point
    Question, though …
    How many of these “freeloaders” are there?

    I suspect the actual number is tiny.
    Any real, actual data, as opposed to prejudices available?

    • December 13, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      Yes but where can we get that? Obviously not from the govt.

  2. Voice of Reason
    December 13, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Well, in the US, doctors are generally rich, by most standards. On top of that, we have an insurance industry which keeps up to 54% of every dollar spent in premiums, plus an aging population which is costing far more in healthcare than they ever paid in taxes.

    • December 13, 2016 at 2:32 pm

      What do Generation X suggest? Euthanasia for Boomers? 🙂

      • Errol
        December 13, 2016 at 8:51 pm

        Pretty much.

      • Voice of Reason
        December 14, 2016 at 2:34 pm

        Not yet, but the banks and hedge fund folks have done a great job in stealing pension funds. Let them starve to death?

  3. Errol
    December 13, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    The costs in the UK aren’t too different, and we pay through insurances as well. US insurance is spread amongst all those paying. In the UK insurance is spread amongst all those paying.

    The system is the same, but in one the client is the state, not the patient and is thus hideously inefficient, the other it is the bill payer, and thus it is expensive.

    There are other systems aside from the US one.

    Honestly you can’t stop your body from breaking. It is an organic, analogue machine thus fallible. Having the NHS is a good thing, but it shouldn’t be so inefficient. It wouldn’t be if the thing were reformed and removed from state control.

  4. Stonyground
    December 14, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    Being blessed with fairly robust health, my contact with the NHS has been fairly minimal. I would also add that, for me at least, my experiences have been fairly positive. However, my one and only hospital stay did highlight how grossly inefficient NHS hospitals are. I was admitted with a blood infection and, up until then undiagnosed, diabetes and was pretty ill. After a couple of days attached to a drip stand having insulin, antibiotics and paracetamol pumped into me, I felt as right as rain. As I see it, what should then have happened is that I was discharged from the hospital and arrangements made for me to have my remaining antibiotic injections as an out patient at my local surgery. What actually happened was that I was kept in for a week until the course of antibiotics was finished. I was then kept in for a whole day more while all the details of my required medication was sorted out. All this was a fairly minor inconvenience for me but must have caused considerable unnecessary extra expense to the NHS, my treatment must have cost more than double what it actually needed to. If my experience is fairly typical, it follows that the NHS could actually be operated on half as much money, or be twice as effective for the same amount. Obviously this is an over simplification but the basic point is valid surely.

Comments are closed.