Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Patient options and choices such as "go to the doctor" vs "go into crippling debt while trying to navigate a labyrinthine billing nightmare"?

Just as an alternative point of view - you describe these regulations as "government-imposed". Would it not be equally (if not more) likely that these regulations are being created and supported by the industry players themselves?

This lack of real competition that you mention sounds like a dream if you have few scruples and a captive market. And telling someone that they'll die unless they pay for your services seems to be about as captive of a market as you can get.



I think choices was meant to mean things like being able to choose between competing healthcare providers.

Created and supported by big industry players that get them turned into law (and thus "government-imposed" - classic regulatory capture.

On the Mexican side of the border there are clusters of doctors, dentists, etc., offering lower cost treatment. I imagine that a large part of the decreased cost is due to reduced regulations that make it easier for small, independent providers to offer their services, which in turn results in substantial competition between the many providers to offer the lowest cost for the standard of treatment that patients want.


That's describing two different services, preventative care, and reactive care.

Your only choice for reactive care is generally only the closest place, and you may not even get a choice on the provider because you were unconscious when it was chosen.

Once you're there hooked up to a machine, how are you changing provider now that you know their services aren't right for you?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: