Is There a Hearing Aid Price Bubble? 698
An anonymous reader writes "The price of a pair of hearing aids in the U.S. ranges from $3,000 to $8,000. To the average American household, this is equivalent to 2-3 months of income! While the price itself seems exorbitant, what is even more grotesque is its continuous pace of growth: in the last decade the price of an average Behind the Ear hearing aid has more than doubled. To the present day, price points are not receding — even though most of its digital components have become increasingly commoditized. Is this a hearing aid price bubble?"
Hmmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Someone is getting older. Next year is the year that the first cohort of Baby Boomers turns 65. Perhaps their "Market" will find a price they can bare in the coming months.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
65? I'm around half that and I'm about ready for a hearing aid. A friend of mine who works on his house more than me needed one about the same age.
Kids, protect your hearing. It sucks to lose the ability to hear people in a crowded room. Especially you crazy maker-types running to the saw to make a few cuts. Get some foam earmuffs, the kind used for shooting, and put them next to the saw. Use em *every* time.
Re: (Score:3)
Get some foam earmuffs, the kind used for shooting, and put them next to the saw. Use em *every* time.
Good advice! They also save you from having to hear yourself scream when you take a finger off.
I've worn ear plugs since my days in a rock and roll band. I can still hear just fine (But the drugs have played hell with my understanding).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!
Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!
Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?
The more expensive hearing aids have an equalizer which can be tuned. That way, you only amplify the frequency ranges you need. Frequency shifting would be much more complex and really not necessary.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore.
Don't worry, the older you get the more you'll think that's actually a benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually my daughters' hearing aides are even cooler. They not only have variable amplifiers that are tuned to match their hearing loss, they also have a pitch shifting program that shifts higher frequencies down so that as their high frequency loss increases, we can just move the upper frequencies down to where they are still sensitive. Happily they don't need that yet, but it is available.
And while I agree that the prices are insane, things are a bit better than they sound. Our audiologist includes all
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?
Carry around a balloon full of sulfur hexafluoride.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's funny to hear people tell you to watch loud power tools and music until... your hearing is 1/2 gone!
Just curious, the doc says hearing aids only amplify the volume of sounds. I'm only deficient in hearing in a certain small range but it makes talking to certain people (usually women and kids) a chore. Isn't there _something_ that can shift the pitch of a certain frequency into another frequency so I can hear it without amplification?
Excuse me while I run to the patent office for a totally unrelated reason.
Re: (Score:3)
So everyone would sound like Mickey the mouse? Brilliant!
or Michael Clarke Duncan.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary wasn't quite accurate. $3000 to $8000 a pair is supposed to be the traditional price.
This story is actually a product marketing newsletter for the company that sells Audicus hearing aids http://www.audicus.com/category/hearing-aids/ [audicus.com] which start from $400 a pair.
http://www.mdhearingaid.com/acoustitone_max/ [mdhearingaid.com] starts at $200 per pair.
The cheapest was http://www.dealextreme.com/p/axon-hearing-aid-v163-4326 [dealextreme.com] Axon Hearing Aid (V163) for about $27 a pair, but they don't seem to adjust to the frequency of the patient's loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Disco destroyed my sinuses
Better that than your rectum...
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even babies are getting older these days.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Funny)
But:
1) The cars will be gas hogs.
2) The houses will have all of the copper ripped out.
3) The diapers will be shipped in from China.
4) The shipping companies will be owned by a Chinese company.
5) The drug companies will have purchased enough votes to receive long term restrictions from generic drug makers to make "age related health improvement drugs".
6) The Teabagger Party will have repealed all of the benefits to people making less than $250,000/y from the health care law and exempt those above from having to pay health insurance.
Oh No! (Score:3, Funny)
Since no one ever buys them... (Score:2)
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:5, Informative)
You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.
True on the insurance part, not so much on the gov't part. I get a digital hearing aid for 100% free (thank you, taxpayers) every two years from the VA. They rolled to full digital HA's a long time ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.
It does here in Australia [wikipedia.org]:
The Australian Department of Health and Ageing provides eligible Australian citizens and residents with a basic hearing aid free-of-charge, though recipients can pay a "top up" charge if they wish to upgrade to a hearing aid with more or better features. Maintenance of these hearing aids and a regular supply of batteries is also provided, on payment of a small annual maintenance fee.
Re: (Score:3)
The NHS has quite a wide range of hearing aids that they can prescribe depending on the type of hearing loss you have. You can buy privately as well and still be entitled to free ones from the NHS. They also provide batteries.
In the UK privately purchased hearing aids cost between £500 and £4000.
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:5, Informative)
Most insurance plans do not cover purchases of hearing aids.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. I was born with hearing loss, and have been denied coverage for my entire life due to pre-existing condition. My family had to scrape up cash when I was a kid. As an adult, (I'm 44 now) I lived in a shithole areas with marginal jobs - it took years to get management to consider health coverage. There was no way I could have afforded insurance on my pay grade, even if they would cover hearing aids.
I finally got laid off long ago and turned to the government. That fixed the problem.
As for a p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Insurance doesn't "buy them" and much depends on what your plan is and/or covers.
In my own case, I needed one hearing aid. Total price $4k. My insurance covered exactly half of that. I'm glad to have it, but what we still have here is an FDA-controlled cartel. There is the "Why not jack up the price."
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Capitalism at its finest.... people have needs... you have answers.... gouge em till they stop asking! Or gouge their insurance and drive rates up for everyone.
CAPITALISM DOES NOT BELONG IN MEDICINE. SINGLE PAYER, NON PROFIT. DO IT.
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actual capitalism is fine in medicine. Fraud, bribery, corrupt regulation, and general unchecked avarice drive up prices. We need fewer medical regulations, and more white collar crimes police units.
Where capitalism has absolutely no place is insurance. Private insurance, yes; for profit insurance, are you @#$% kidding?!?
Re: "general unchecked avarice" (Score:3)
"General unchecked avarice" is pretty much a perfect definition of capitalism.
The only thing that would hold that avarice in check is a well-informed market that has a reasonable understanding of the products in the market, knows how to estimate things like cost to produce and profit margins, and actually cares enough to walk away when a transaction isn't a roughly equal exchange of value. I don't care how much government regulation you throw at a market, it won't a be a successful inhibition of that avari
Re: "general unchecked avarice" (Score:5, Insightful)
isn't wanting something cheaper just as greedy as wanting something more expensive?
If I demand a $5 hearing aid how is that less greedy than charging $5k? Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:4, Insightful)
A regulation-free medical industry is one where you get loads of useless homoeopathic and similar remedies, and there is no guarantee that they will work as described or be safe.
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:4, Informative)
Medical regulations aren't causing the expense of your hearing aids. I don't know where the blame lies, but that almost certainly isn't it. The reason capitalism isn't necessarily fine with medicine is the number of suppliers is often so limited, there is no real competition.
Government regulations are the primary reason why the number of suppliers is so limited. The regulations governing the manufacture and sale of medical devices are subject to interpretation and the FDA will not necessarily give you the definitive word on what the correct interpretation is.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What do you do for a living? What if I told you that you weren't allowed to make a profit? No extras, just a "living" wage. No bonuses, no benefits. How would you feel about that? Would you attempt to be the best you can at your job, or just punch the clock?
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:4, Informative)
You're too dim to understand the difference between non-profit and capitalism.
Non-profit means all of the people involved in the work still get paid. The doctors get paid. The nurses. The hospitals. The people who administer payment from the single payer system even get paid.
What DOESN'T exist is MORE MONEY/COSTS being taken out for people who do not actually do the work. These are the stockholders to insurance companies.
I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to explain this to you so now you understand.
I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.
Re: (Score:3)
I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.
How exactly would the patent owner recover the expense of your research? Drug _manufacturing_ isn't where the expense lies, the cost is in identifying the compound to manufacture. If you base the price on the manufacturing cost, then there is no money left for research on new products.
And I dispute your suggestion that stockholders and insurance companies don't contribute meaningfully to the process. Stockholders provide their cold, hard cash that helps the company e.g. make payroll during the research p
Re: (Score:3)
No, wages come out of the gross, and are a cost before profit. Understanding that is really key to understanding what non-profit means, exactly.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, when was the last time you talked to an insurance company and thought: "They really attempt to be the best they can at their job.
Ah, me neither.
-Greg
What i the "best they can at their job" mean (Score:3)
What is the "best they can at their job" mean for an insurance company?
It means achieving excellence in raising prices and not paying claims while simultaneously limiting quantified regulatory and legal liability to an acceptable fraction of revenue.
I think US health insurance companies are very good at their jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I'd feel about like the vast majority of the workforce.
Re: (Score:3)
If the components "have become increasingly commoditized"... then capitalism will fix this. Some enterprising person will come along and start up a new company making hearing aids for half the current asking price and the market will fix itself. If the components really are specialized enough that they can demand the prices they have now then that won't happen (and then there is nothing wrong with the current prices).
This is actually exactly what the "story" is about... it is asking if the current market
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hearing aids are regulated by the FDA which is why it costs $5k or so in paperwork.
Here is capitalism. It looks like a hearing aid but it is really a sound amplifier so it is not regulated by the FDA. It costs $70.
http://www.amazon.com/Voxom-Hearing-Aid-Sound-Amplifier/dp/B005AM7S3K/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1315622221&sr=8-9 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I almost didn't want to link to it because I'm sure there are a few people here that think this company is taking advantage of those with hearing loss since it's not an FDA approved device and they might report it and get them to remove this product. I wish people would read the comments. It's all people that needed a hearing aid but couldn't afford the FDA approved ones. Many people admit that it isn't quite as good as the FDA ones but for them it's a better choice. And that is what a free market is about.
Re:Since no one ever buys them... (Score:4, Interesting)
So why is it that single payer non-profit health insurance is 40% LOWER in cost than *ANY* for profit insurer out there?
You've expressed that it will win, but you've got NO FACTS to show. In the US, insurance is largely FOR PROFIT. Please demonstrate one company where they charge LESS than can be achieved by single-payer..... I'll wait... Matter of fact I"ll check for your response in a week because I know you won't find ANYTHING. If what you said was true, people would be using that insurer like crazy!
Get out of your utopian head and back to reality. Capitalism in medicine is criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
It charges less money but requires you pay in other ways. Services are limited to only those approved by the single payer system. Like all price controls there is rationing where people have to wait for service.
My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember my mom and her husband went on vacation and had some trouble with his hearing aid. Basically, he plugged it in to recharge it and the charger burnt out; it could only handle U.S. voltages. The couple staying in the room next door saw the blackened charger sitting in front of their door and asked what had happened. They found the whole thing very strange. They were European, and their hearing aid charger could adapt to any global voltage, and they had never heard of one that worked otherwise. If I remember right, the woman's own hearing aid was also significantly higher-tech than my mom's husband's. It was not only smaller, but it fit deep into the ear canal (I'm not talking about a cochlear implant, this was a hearing aid). The important thing here is that my parents, living in the U.S., had neither seen nor heard of either technology. Their doctor had given them a couple of choices for a hearing aid and they chose the better one -- which obviously wasn't as good as what you could pick up in Europe. I don't know what they paid for the hearing aid, but it seems to me like something funny is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
And my mother-in-law spent about $3K for her hearing aid, got something that basically hid in her ear, and used replaceable batteries.
Don't know what my dad's cost, but he a notorious tightwad, so I doubt it was $3K, and his also fit into his ear and used replaceable batteries.
Sounds like your dad made a bad choice in hearing aids.
It should also be pointed out that getting a standard American plug into a 220V socket is the next best thing to impossible. It certainly wasn't done without some work on your
Re: (Score:2)
I have behind-the-ear hearing aids that use replaceable batteries; they last ten to fifteen days. My mother used an older style that fit inside the ear and needed to be molded to fit. They used batteries too. In fact, I've never seen a hearing aid that needed a charger. The OP's story must be very, very old.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I've never seen a hearing aid that needed a charger. The OP's story must be very, very old.
They're pretty commonplace. Like anything rechargeable, they're sold on the basis of "no more worrying about buying/replacing batteries." Think about people who travel and find themselves staying in RV parks in unfamiliar parts of the country, or who have arthritis and have trouble messing around with little batteries. A hearing aid that you can plug in and charge up from a wall socket is very handy -- provided, that is, it isn't built like crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like your dad made a bad choice in hearing aids.
My point is, he chose from the only choices that were offered to him. I'm not sure if this was before or after he was forced onto Medicare -- but even then, he does pay extra for supplemental care. Nobody showed him anything high-tech. (He's not my dad, BTW.)
It should also be pointed out that getting a standard American plug into a 220V socket is the next best thing to impossible. It certainly wasn't done without some work on your dad's part....
Pretty much any hotel will give you an adapter. Some of the adapters will have warnings on them telling you only to use this or that type of device, but many don't. They probably should have known better, but then, all my high-tech equipment seems to be
Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles (Score:5, Insightful)
"... obviously wasn't as good as what you could pick up in Europe. I don't know what they paid for the hearing aid, but it seems to me like something funny is going on."
I would say that the "something funny" is just raw American ignorance. There's lots of higher-tech products and infrastructure in other countries. But we're brainwashed to believe that it's not, by definition, possible for America to be behind the curve. In many ways.
Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles (Score:4, Informative)
Bottom line, your conclusion is not well founded given the original post.
Re:My mom's husband has hearing aid troubles (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, we have coverage for hearing aids from the government. However, there is restrictions on the make, models and types of hearing aids we can pick from. There is a list reviewed every two years or so. Usually, the government make a deal with few manufacturers after asking them to answer to a public RFP (Request for proposals). They set guidelines and the manufacturers must bid as well on a 6 years maintenance plan for their own devices. Those with the lowest prices meeting the requirements for each category win. The drawbacks of this approach is the devices are always end-of-line models. If you want to pick one not on the list, you have to pay it in full. This permit most individuals with hearing loss to have access to hearing aids devices at the price of having access to low-end models only.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone rags on the FDA when there is some process or equipment that they personally want. But if some sub-par unregulated hearing aid destroyed the remaining hearing in their ears or the ears of someone they care about hell would be raised over the lack of oversight.
This this (Score:2)
lot's of medical stuff is very over priced (Score:2)
and it's a rip off on many levels.
Re:lot's of medical stuff is very over priced (Score:4, Interesting)
Simply put, but this is the actual answer to the question posed in the summary. The cost of health service and supplies are greatly inflated in the states compared to most of the modern world. I don't mean in the sense of "oh, in other countries it's paid for by taxes" sense or the "yeah but it is inferior quality care" sense but the actual amount that the provider gets paid for exactly the same supplies or service, regardless of who is paying it in the end. As an outsider looking in at America i really do not understand how the health provider industry in the states managed to pull it off.
Americans are getting ripped off on health care hard, to the tune of 2 to 10 times the prices paid out to suppliers or service providers in other countries. I think given the amount of discussion on HOW or WHO will be paying for health care in past years, some groups had to be lobbying very hard to keep the topic of "Why is it so damned expensive here to begin with" out of the limelight.
And they succeeded.
Really? (Score:2)
I'm about ready to join the throng of sardonic malcontents who greet every new story with "This is what we get now that Taco's gone?"
No surprises for those paying attention (Score:2)
Of course they're overpriced. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
'Full Retail Price' in the medical world is often less than you would imagine. Hospitals routinely offer a 30% or better discount for paying in cash. Many medical establishments are likely the same way, for the same reason- dealing with insurance companies, medicare, or the VA requires a great deal of administrative overhead.
Yes, I've asked a few times. The next few times you find yourself in the business office of a medical establishment, ask them what the cash discount is. You might be surprised at what
Re:Of course they're overpriced. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like this for everything. We had a baby 1.5 years ago. He wouldn't breastfeed so my wife rented a hospital grade pump to do the hard work.
Our insurance didn't cover it 100% because it wasn't "medically necessary" (they'd rather you use formula) and it would have been around $125/month out of pocket for us.
We told the medical equipment company we didn't have insurance and suddenly the price was just under $60/month. What does that mean? They overcharge the insurance companies by at least 3x what their actual costs are because they can.
Our insurance companies aren't exactly the problem. It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.
Re:Of course they're overpriced. (Score:5, Funny)
They're robbing us all blind.
And, apparently, robbing some of us deaf.
That's nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Of course they're overpriced. (Score:4, Interesting)
Setting aside that we're getting off topic since hearing aids aren't covered by a lot of insurance companies, insurance companies want prices to be high (since their contracts get them out of paying full price). They want you to be scared of the ER bogeyman. Your trip to the emergency room could cost you TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS (oooOOOoooo). Buy our insurance now! For only $10k/yr, we'll pay half your ER trip, (after the first $5k deductible and subject to your unconscious body being taken by in-network ambulance drivers to an in-network hospital where you are seen by in-network doctors and treated with in-network drugs). Whatta deal!
If insurance companies wanted to make medicine cheap, they could invest in drug development, invest in new treatments for expensive diseases, invest in more hospitals, and so on.
Three reasons why this happens (Score:2)
2. It lets them do the "50%" bit. If you shop around and make it clear you are not using insurance, you can get these special deals.
3.None of them are really good enough. So when the technology improves, they keep the price the same and upgrade the quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: Some insurance does pay for hearing aids. Blue Shield of California will cover them if you subscribe to one of a few specific plans, and only then if you purchase the coverage as an option. The coverage, if you choose to purchase it, will pay up to $2,000 toward hearing aids every 24 months ... so it won't cover the cost of aids for both ears completely, and might not fully cover the cost of a single hearing aid, if the prices really are what are quoted here. And it's not clear whether you have
a little fishy (Score:4, Insightful)
Weak article, but good points (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Neither is half the programming crap that gets discussed, but you don't hear me complaining. It would appear that medical concerns are a popular topic; I agree, and you don't. It would appear that programming slander/gossip/biz is a popular topic; I disagree, you probably like it.
Move on.
Keep telling yourself that (Score:2)
I wear 'em... (Score:2)
I've been wearing the suckers in both ears since I was in 2nd grade due to a high level of conductive hearing loss. I'm lucky that my family can afford them.
I've been approached many times – both domestically and while abroad – by people who needed them, but couldn't afford them. This may make sense in third world countries where people may not have access to more advanced technology, but it makes zero sense in "first world" countries.
One possible reason why the technology is so expensive is tha
Yes of course this is bubble (Score:2)
take out a loan while you still can, and foreclose it when the bubble bursts.
They are cheap in China (Score:2)
Consumer Reports -- more objective source (Score:3)
Here's the Consumer Reports article on hearing aids
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/home-medical-supplies/hearing/hearing-aids/overview/hearing-aids-ov.htm [consumerreports.org]
and here's a Washington Post article about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201623.html [washingtonpost.com]
Unfortunately it's 2 years old, and the ratings are behind a paywall (CR doesn't take ads, and they've got to pay the bills somehow).
Also unfortunately they only tested hearing aids selling for $1,800 to $6,800 per pair.
They said there's about a 100% markup, so there's room to negotiate.
What I was really looking for, and what I couldn't find, was an article from an audiology journal which rated the low-priced hearing aids. They said that there were $500 hearing aids that were quite adequate for most people.
Can anybody who follows this research help me out with some cites?
Why does this remind me of the Heathkit story? (Score:3, Informative)
Hm... seems like an opportunity...
Markup is pretty impressive on these things. (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work for a hearing aid company in IT.
The most expensive programmable digital hearing aid with all the options topped out at around $1200. That's the cost to the hearing care professional. So yeah, that hearing aid would turn around and sell for at least 3 to 4 times that.
Also, the company had an extended warranty that we sold to the hearing care professional. Most of them don't turn around and sell that to the customer. Instead, they pay for it themselves and then when a customer brings a hearing aid back they sent it to us for free to fix and they charged the customer for it. It seemed like quite a nice racket. Especially when you consider they also charge for the hearing checkup, fitting, and all of that other usual crap above and beyond what the hearing aid itself cost.
I'm not sure what the rest of the medical device industry looks like, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was fairly similar. I know the markup on my glasses frames is pretty crazy.
Recent ad for $500 hearing aid (Score:4, Interesting)
When she got it, we were fairly well off - just sold a company and to be frank, I didn't notice how much it cost.
recent problems with it put me on the front lines - and getting a bill for $800 just to fix is gave me a lot of angst. I have to say I railed at the person on the front counter quite a bit considering I know a lot about analog, digital, integrated circuits, and such - and basically told her that IMHO the components she was quoting as retail in the $3000 range were worth about $10 or less.
Then she loaned us an "over the ear" unit while the in-the-ear one was out for repair - and when I went to give it back, said "keep it" - so confirming that the actual hardware cost is trivial (unit is about 3 times the size of the current one but otherwise similar capabilities - and given the progress in IC units, represents maybe 3 years' progress)
So... when I heard an ad on the radio last week for an in-ear hearing aid for $500, I figured "about time" and so the poster is correct - there is a revolution coming.
Question is - what patents will be held over the heads of those trying to break this cartel - because it truly must be a cartel.
Note that I can now (despite the eye-glass cartel of yesteryear) purchase more than useful eye-glasses in various basic diopters at the local dollar store - to the point where I have enough around the house that I have achieve "maxiumum vapour pressure" of eye-glasses (i.e. there is a pair at hand any time/where I need them)
richard
UK and AU pointless posts. (Score:4, Funny)
All of these posts about how your countries give hearing aids to elderly and poor is just rude. If the U.S. was a AAA country we would do it too. Showing off your wealth is lame.
Re:$3k is 2 months income? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the average American household is well above that.
They may be counting single-occupancy dwellings as "households," but the important part is, probably a great many of the people who require hearing aids are either already on fixed income or are close to retirement.
And if there is a price bubble, the Chinese will be right there to correct it.
TFA claims the ones we're paying $2,000 for are already being manufactured in China for $100. The problem is that a hearing aid is technically a durable medical device. Many people prefer to consult with a professional to get the right model, correct fit, etc., and some states actually forbid hearing aids being sold by mail or by anyone other than a licensed professional. So that kinda puts a damper on the grey market for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$3k is 2 months income? (Score:4, Interesting)
This.
Say what you will about financial motivation, but for-profit healthcare is a morally bankrupt and ultimately self-defeating strategy. I'm fine with the doctors and professionals getting paid, everyone needs a job, but these people should not be greedy middlemen in the sales industry. They're not "adding value", they're double-dipping.
Re: (Score:3)
No, most of it goes to the executives. Check the compensation disclosed in the medical sector and compare to net profits of the relevant corporations.
Re:$3k is 2 months income? (Score:5, Interesting)
well you pay for the medical professional's advice and consultation outside the already incredible price for the hearing aid, so charging $2000 for a $100 device is really just an incredible abuse of power. This is why for profit medicare sucks.
It may be an abuse of power, but I don't know that it's the doctor who's the abuser. Doctors are probably forced to buy everything through "the approved channels" -- they can't just fly someone to China and come back with a suitcase full of $100 hearing aids, and they're probably not even allowed to distribute literature to patients about shopping for a grey market hearing aid on their own. So if a patient has to go to a U.S. doctor, then the patient has to pay the U.S. price.
It is funny, though. My parents, who are fairly Republican and were vehemently against "Obamacare," are already driving to Mexico to fill their prescriptions, where they cost something like 70 percent less. For some reason, my parents cannot see the doublethink of voting against healthcare reform despite the position they find themselves in. I think it's just the paralysis of fixed income -- you're so desperate to protect what you have right now that you will resist any change -- even though, deep down, you can feel the vice tightening around you.
Re: (Score:3)
Although it's called "healthcare reform", it's only reform in the sense that the form is new. It is not reform in the sense of improvement, it's naked tyranny.
True healthcare improvement would involve things like closing the FDA, ending licensure laws, prohibiting the extension or renewal of drug patents, and removing state restrictions on insurance companies.
A hearing aid is simpler than a radio, and radios can be had for $5 at Walmart. Hearing aids should be even cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why for profit medicare sucks.
I dunno, that's the model that's followed in veterinary medicine and their prices are lower, their equipment up to date and the waits are shorter than most human-care systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Call me when you can euthanize grama because her surgery is too expensive.
You theory is that because euthanasia is available, surgery is less expensive? Huh?
Re: (Score:3)
If by "crappier results" you mean "the most advanced medicines and treatments" and "thousands of people fly to the US for surgeries that they can't get in their 'superior' country with government run health care", then sure - you're right.
Yet despite this, people on average die sooner here than most other developed countries. You have to look at bottom line results, nut just anecdotes about miracle treatments for a few lucky individuals. The bottom line here is: FAIL.
As you point out, our healthcare system looks like 4-star hotels in Cuba: only wealthy foreign tourists seem to be able to afford it.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that a hearing aid is technically a durable medical device.
That is exactly the problem. Because it is a "medical device" it is subject to a bunch of regulations. One of the things is that the company that manufactures it must meet various FDA regulations for the manufacture of a medical device. Then you have the various state regulations. The overall effect of these regulations is to limit competition.
you are a ....... (Score:3)
uhm.
how shall i say this politely.
you are a victim of an educational system that has not allowed you to discover the basic, fundamental truths of the world you live in.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should they lower their prices? The cost to have the device approved by the FDA means that there are few players. All of the players know the game.
Seems like a great opportunity for a blue-tooth headset manufacturer to differentiate their product line. Don't even advertise it as having hearing-aid functionality - if anything promote it as one of those "big ears" gimmicks like in the backs of comic books. If a $100 headset is even just 50% as good as a $5000 super-miniaturised hearing aid, word of mouth will be all it takes for them to being selling like hotcakes within a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Social security is in trouble? (Score:2)
How so? It's fully self-funded, it's solvent through 2036 last I heard, and lifting the tax cap above $106k will fix it permanently.
Trouble With Social Security?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the biggest reasons why social security is in trouble.
This is so wrong! You have bought into the shell game and misdirection that so many politicians have been leading. The Social Security trust fund holds over $2.5 trillion. Most of this has been lent to other under funded government projects. That's the problem. We don't want to pay back the the money we borrowed from the Social Security system and instead say the system is broken. It isn't. The systems is fully self funded. We've just been treating the huge Social Security surpluses as a giant piggy bank for so long that we find it easier to say Social Security is broken than pay back the money we stole!
Re:Yeah, but who's buying? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Healthcare costs are where they are because the CAPITALISM factor is involved.
With Single Payer Non-Profit, you can expect a 40-50% decrease in total cost to insure. Modeling after Canada's cost/person, a reduction from $1.5TR/250M-people to $1TR/300M-people is possible. That means the 250 million that pay for insurance are paying 1.5 TRILLION a year for shoddy, exclusion rich, insurance when the sum of all Americans, 300 million people, would be paying 1 TRILLION to cover everyone without any exclusions or b.s. trickery.
I've talked to over 40 canadians about how they feel about their single-payer system and NOT A SINGLE ONE agreed with the US-paid-pundits that lie about how canadian's don't like their healthcare. Matter of fact, more than 25% of them laughed when I first asked, knowing that I had been exposed to the US-paid-pundits and required truthful answers.
Re: (Score:3)
What we don't like are the long waiting lists for some surgeries, and in general the unreasonably long ER waiting times. Some affluent people do choose to go stateside and pay for their surgery in order to bypass the waiting list.
One thing that does suck is we don't have enough doctors to go around. I'm not too sure what's up with that, but it is one of the main causes of those long ER delays. In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance w
Re:Yeah, but who's buying? (Score:5, Informative)
In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb...
We have that in the US too. My medium sized city has a few of the best hospitals in country. Unless you're bleeding severely, giving birth, or having a heart attack you can count on a multi-hour wait at the emergency room. The only different thing from Canada is that patients get to walk out with fat bill. Something minor runs hundreds. Something major costs thousands.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between Canadian and US is two very different things. In Canada the FEDERAL government has near to 0 involvement in your healthcare unless you're either a native, live in a very remote place(aka resolute), or you're in the military. Each province is responsible for the healthcare in their province. The most that the feds get involved is ensuring that each province has the same basic level of care.
Now if you live in Quebec, you'll probably get more than someone in Ontario. That reason is
Re: (Score:3)
"Thank you Barack, we already know your opinion."
Notice that Barack worked to get exactly the opposite of a single-payer system instituted (namely, more forced payments to private insurance companies). Personally, I would not mind seeing his butt kicked up and down the street a few times for that. You're seeing a certain color as its opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
Per capita, the United States spends more money on healthcare than any other country in the world. The country paying the second most is Norway. The US spends 50% more money per capita than Norway. The US ranks 36th in longevity. The majority of countries which have longer longevity than the US have per-capita healthcare costs that are less than half of what the US pays.
Per-capita healthcare costs by country: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot [kff.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet every similar device that isn't a hearing aid has come way down in price in that same time frame. The difference is that the FDA won't butt out of hearing aids.