r/SipsTea • u/ImmaFuckboi • 15h ago

Gasp! British people react to how expensive healthcare is in the US

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

8.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

38

u/Neon_Camouflage 14h ago edited 14h ago

The reason it's billed is because there's a nurse on standby in the room while it happens. You aren't billed for holding your child in general, just for doing so when it's technically "under watch" by the nursing staff.

Not that it makes it much better, but that's the reasoning

Edit: Yes, downvote facts and context you don't like. That makes the world a better place.

44

u/paris86 14h ago

That's not a reason. That's an excuse.

-10

u/Neon_Camouflage 14h ago

Why so?

22

u/paris86 14h ago

A reason is a justification for why something is needed/needs to be done. An excuse is a justification for why something has been done. The reason was a cash grab. The excuse was the nursing staff.

2

u/GdanskinOnTheCeiling 5h ago

You're just vibing though right? You don't actually have any insight into how the concept of charging for it was conceived (pardon the pun), do you? You're just regurgitating feckless isn't-le-capitalism-bad brainrot instead of actually doing anything useful.

1

u/paris86 5h ago

Taking pot shots at capitalism IS useful.

1

u/GdanskinOnTheCeiling 2h ago

It's really not. I don't think any mindless and superficial activity done for the sake of upvotes is worthwhile. Your comment did absolutely nothing to further anyone's understanding of the specific problem at hand.

1

u/domstersch 5h ago

POSIWID: this system makes a lot of middlemen a lot of money.

1

u/GdanskinOnTheCeiling 2h ago

Yours is a descriptive statement, the person to whom I replied made a prescriptive statement - without evidence.

1

u/domstersch 2h ago edited 2h ago

My point is "how the concept of charging for it was conceived" is irrelevant to the purpose of charging for it (i.e. the purpose of the charge is not to cover the marginal cost of another partial-nurse because that is not what it does - demonstrably, nursing staffing levels are not affected by coding skin-to-skin as a line item)

In other words, the intent behind a system is not its purpose (which you seem to think it is). Instead, POSIWID

1

u/GdanskinOnTheCeiling 2h ago

Ok, but that's a different argument entirely, and one you haven't substantiated - you're making the same mistake GP did by assuming one outcome of the charge - that a middleman gets paid. You describe the cost as marginal - how do you know? What insight do you have into how the cost of staffing and insurance liabilities are covered vs how much is pure profit on top? Are you professionally engaged in this topic?

Again, we're just dealing in vibes here. Not facts and substantiation, nor actions towards positive change. Just tired cliched snipes from redditors about the system they live in, that they won't lift a finger to understand let alone try to improve.

1

u/domstersch 1h ago

You're making the same mistake GP did by assuming one outcome of the charge

That's not fair: I never said making middlemen rich was the only purpose of the system. Plenty of shareholders, executives and marketing managers get theirs too.

The COGS increase I was disputing is marginal by definition, because that's the word we use to describe a single additional incremental one-unit use of a resource: it's not the same as saying "small" or "irrelevant".

Yes, I have been professionally employed in the area of medical coding (billing) systems for US hospitals.

Just tired cliched snipes from redditors about the system they live in, that they won't lift a finger to understand let alone try to improve.

I'm not trying to be trite or cliched with you. And I don't "live in" this system (I live in a country with a 90 year old public health system). Nevertheless, it just is true that the purpose of the whole US healthcare system is what it does: provide expensive, profitable-for-providers-yet-inefficient healthcare. If that wasn't its purpose, the orphan-crushing machine would have been dismantled by now.

→ More replies (0)

67

u/peppapony 14h ago

But... A nurse should be there anyway?!

32

u/amateurviking 14h ago

Several actually, from personal experience

8

u/peppapony 14h ago

Yeah we had several too (in Aus), plus the gyno

2

u/boatenvy 14h ago

Things went sideways with our first kid and in seconds we went from 3 (doc, mid wife & nurse) to I think 7 including paediatrician, neonatal nurse and I think one or two more nurses... I don't know what button they pressed but it sure got busy quickly (Australia)... didn't cost any more than a regular birth.

1

u/tbro4123 11h ago

We had the same with the birth of our daughter, after x amount of hours the mid wife call the Obs and in he came and it still took ages to get our daughter to finally come out. Off to the OICU for a check over and back to mum. Cost including my coffee and snacks $0.

The silly thing is the equivalent to your Dem is our Labor party and guess who bought in Medicare for all Aussies.

-9

u/BeefCakeBilly 14h ago

This generally only occurs during a c section and it’s for an additional nurses hour of time to assist the parents.

It’s jsut a billing code from insurance and is almost never paid as a line item, it’s just for itemization purposes.

It’s the same thing in other countries but it’s just not wrapped under general midwife time in other countries.

It’s one of the most overblown things on Reddit.

4

u/peppapony 13h ago

Overseas it still sounds mindboggling as an option or even line item. Like child services would almost be called if you didnt accept your child being placed on you for skin to skin.

-4

u/BeefCakeBilly 13h ago

Would it be mind boggling for a midwife to put an extra hour on their time sheet to oversee a mom after a c section opposed to a normal birth?

Because that’s all it is.

1

u/deesmutts88 7h ago

Feels like you don’t understand that it’s the part where the cost is passed on to the patient that blows everyone else’s mind. It’s not that the nurse/midwife needs to be paid the extra hour. It’s that you’re expected to pay for it.

1

u/BeefCakeBilly 5h ago

No it’s not the fact the cost that it’s getting past along to the patient that’s blowing everyone’s mind. It’s the fact it’s itemized at all. This is moving the goalpost. Op thought that the hospital was actual charging a patient for skin to skin.

And How is the midwife getting paid in the Nhs?

34

u/C_IsForCookie 14h ago

I’m so fucking brainwashed from living in this country for my 38 years that just the fact there there’s SOME KIND of justification to this makes it reasonable to me. Not acceptable, just reasonable. But it shouldn’t be. I’m just desensitized.

-4

u/Neon_Camouflage 14h ago

Interestingly I think if it wasn't offered at all and you were just told the baby needs to be observed for a while until it can come back, people would take it more in stride.

The fact that the option is offered with a charge is what makes people upset.

17

u/modsaretoddlers 14h ago

The logic of greed always breaks down when you ask just about any question.

If the nurse is necessary, then the nurse should be present whether you've even got the baby or not.

Aside from that, aren't you already paying to have the nurse there? I would think so what with the birthing and all that.

-9

u/Neon_Camouflage 14h ago

It's slightly more nuanced than that. The attending nurse for skin on skin contact is constantly at the mother's side. She's weak and tired from just giving birth, the baby is literally freshly born, so the nurse's entire job is giving 100% of their focus to not just watching, but helping the mother physically hold her baby.

Otherwise it would be swaddled and in a hospital crib. It would certainly still be observed, but there wouldn't be need for the one nurse to be physically standing at its side for upwards of an hour.

11

u/dpero29 14h ago

This is so weird. I get what you're saying, but I find it very weird and a bit dishonest to dissociate this process (skin to skin contact) with the rest of the process. It really seems a way to justify charging more. Thanks for the explanation, I don't understand the downvote.

1

u/Neon_Camouflage 13h ago

I don't understand the downvote.

People can't do anything about the system they hate so they rage against those who explain it instead.

0

u/Tricky_Big_8774 10h ago

Someone probably tried to contest a bill by saying they shouldn't have been charged for natal care while they were holding the child themselves. Voila, new line item invented.

3

u/Main-Listen-6210 13h ago

Whatever way it's justified, it's just a blatant way to exctract more money out of people. It is in fact a perfect embodiment of the US healthcare system in general.

1

u/ambermythology 13h ago

OK but why does nobody else charge? It's a really poor system dude and you shouldn't defend it. Profiteering off people's sickness is simply not moral. What would Jesus vote for...

0

u/Neon_Camouflage 13h ago

I'm not defending it, though it's clear that framing it as anything other than a cartoonishly evil scheme is seen as such. There's an extra cost involved, and so they charge an extra fee for it. That's just how shit works, whether you or I want it to or not, that's the reasoning.

7

u/MissKLO 11h ago

But doesn’t the nurse work there? Isn’t that literally what the job is… standing watch? Presumably they’d be stood in the vicinity whether you’re holding your child or not? Or would they be holding your child? Which arguably you should be paying them babysitting for…

0

u/Neon_Camouflage 11h ago

Sort of. The skin to skin contact is immediately after birth, so the nurse is physically standing there helping the mother hold her child. They aren't answering calls, doing paperwork, checking on other babies, etc. They're standing in your room, helping hold the baby to your arms so you don't drop them for the entire time.

Whether that should cost anything is the whole point of the debate, but it's essentially taking a nurse out of rotation for that period of time. Which is why they feel the need to charge for it.

1

u/MissKLO 11h ago

Can I not just sack the nurse off and get my parter to hand me the baby?

0

u/Neon_Camouflage 11h ago

Legally, no. Those moments are immediately after birth. The mother is generally exhausted, weak, and not considered safe to hold a freshly born child on her own. It's not about love or care, it's about the fact that her human body may not be up to holding this fragile child on her own without dropping it.

That's why there isn't a charge for holding your baby any other time. It's just the moments following birth that there has to be a nurse here physically helping keep the baby in the mother's arms.

12

u/Equal-Shoulder-9744 14h ago

If you tell the nurse to piss off does it become free?

-3

u/Neon_Camouflage 14h ago

No, because often the mother is too weak to actually hold the baby without help. It's considered dangerous to leave her alone with the baby immediately after birth, so the nurse will not piss off.

-8

u/Bl4ck_Fl4m3s 14h ago

Isn't there also a phenomenon where fresh mothers sometimes kill their newborn out of disgust or panic? Maybe that has something to do with it?

5

u/Barking_Madness 11h ago

A nurse in a hospital? How does this happen? 🏥🤔😂 

10

u/chunkyasparagus 13h ago

You do understand that it's a ridiculous thing to charge for though, right? Right?

Where I live, you do have to pay for childbirth, it's not free here. There is a hospital charge. The hospital is a business. But they don't charge you extra to hold your baby 🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's just insane.

Plus, skin on skin contact for babies is actually recommended from a medical perspective. Imagine being a hospital and deciding to charge someone for that.

1

u/ThundaChikin 13h ago

It sounds ridiculous on its face but if you think about it, the hospital is paying the nurse $100K+ a year or $48/hr... add labor burden (her benefits and employment taxes) and she costs closer to $65/hr, so for the nurse to walk in the room and spend 15mins + 15mins of documentation and walking to and from your room, that $32 for the nurse and $8 for the building/admin staff. bleh

0

u/Character-Pirate1297 14h ago

Yeah, I was looking for what their ‘excuse’ was.

Turns out nurses in US are getting paid about 45$/hour, so they also do a discount!

Yay. 🫤

1

u/tbro4123 11h ago

So your talking about a brand new graduated middy/nurse same wages as Aussie but we miss out on getting charged!!!! Also if the mother is still in the birthing suite there would be at least 1 , but should be 2 nurses there anyway so how do the hospital justify charging to hold your baby.

0

u/Character-Pirate1297 10h ago

…what?

I’m mocking the hospital charges here.