Zuckerberg San Francisco General attempts to excuse price gouging


Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/07/zuckerberg-san-francisco-gener.html




This is one reason the ACA doesn’t work. Single payer is the only workable solution.


I am sure the hospital is making Mr. Zuckerberg very proud.


Come to the United States for healthcare that zucks.


Say what you will, the hospital is reflecting the business philosophy of its major benefactor.


What you did there: I see it! Side note: 100% agree. The only thing missing is for companies to track your every move after you visit regardless of what the EULA states.



Other systems are also workable, such as those in Japan and Singapore. Single payer would be great, though. Just about anything would be better than the hodgepodge in the U.S. (better for the people I mean, not better for the for-profit insurance companies).


leave it to zuck to think someone who’s been struck by a self driving car should have to “opt out” of going to his ER. “The ambulance ride was hundreds of seconds, and you couldn’t spend five of them to opt out?” said the ginormous weenie when asked for comment by some bitcoin blog


“It’s a pretty common thing,” said Brent Andrew.

No it isn’t.

In my fair city we have one University hospital that doesn’t play nice with insurance companies, but they are in one network (maybe two). Ironically, the majority of their patients are indigent; apparently the city pays better than insurance.

We also have dozens of hospitals that are in most insurance networks. I don’t think anybody is in every network, but building those networks is far above my pay grade.

The only medical practices that accept no insurance at all are “boutique” doctors who cater to the very rich. These doctors do not have emergency centers that welcome people who cannot afford to pay.


Honestly, this is messed up. ER services - friggin’ ER services, which means people may be brought in unconscious or if not bleeding from a car crash or with broken arms and legs - must be a basic service which doesn’t bankrupt anyone, with or without insurance. A situation like that described in the article is just insane.

Someone might in theory be bankrupt for the rest of their lives just because they suffer a hit and run or get mugged or fall on their bicycle. Something really does need to change here.

ETA: I haven’t read the other comments yet, I’m probably the twentieth to make this very basic and obvious observation. I’m sorry. :slight_smile:


Medical bills frequently bankrupt people. And when you compare the billed charge with the accepted charge (whether it be via Medicare or other health insurance) – how much of a reduction there is (sometimes almost 90% reduction) – it is then unfathomable to think that those without coverage are expected to pay the 100% billed charge. No wonder they are bankrupted. or take on a devastating financial burden.


Hey; it’s probably the one area of his life where his sinister plan involves not bringing as much in-network as possible!


Personal bankruptcy isn’t a decades long thing, it is years long with a seven year kick on your credit rating. So it could be “the rest of their lives”, but only if they were pretty close to the end of their lives anyway.

That said, you are totally right, this is a thing that should not be true…and sadly is true.

People without insurance are super screwed. People with insurance are sometimes also super screwed. Sometimes it works out that they “just” end up with significant trauma to recover from, but only modest bills.

In a perfect world we would have a way to fund the hospitals/doctors and not also saddle people in dire need (or even normal need!) with costs they can’t pay, or even just costs that are a significant burden to pay.



Ignore the following: I guess I have to add more text or something to get this to post.






Showoff. :yum:

Seriously, I can never remember that trick.


It’d be a damn shame if some styrofoam fell on that Z and turned it into an F


It’s worth mentioning that while it’s the hospital’s decision not to work with private insurance, they aren’t actually setting the prices. The City of San Francisco does: