props to Smokey for having the guts to pose the question.

My views are very narrowly defined by what I see in my profession and what I've experienced personally. In my profession I constantly see medical bills, particularly hospital bills that vary widely based on whether the patient is insured. Typically, the person who is NOT insured is billed 3X the amount that the hospital accepts from the health insurance carrier of the person who is insured for the same services. This may make sense from a bean counter's perspective based on number of patients insured by the carrier with whom the hospital has a contract (but I can't explain it), but from the consumer's standpoint paying 3 times the amount an insured is billed (the insured doesn't actually pay the one-third bill, but pays a deductible based on a percentage of the reduced bill) is a ticket to bankruptcy. A person working a manual labor job that doesn't offer health insurance (we have a lot of those in my area) could actually afford health services if he or she was billed the same amount that an insured person's health insurance company is billed for the same service, albeit the manual laborer may need to pay off the bill over time. Is the actual value of health services closer to what the health care provider accepts from the insurance company or is the value closer to what the provider bills the uninsured individual? If we address health care costs, I think we need to start with establishing the true costs.

On a personal level, my effin credit report is littered with medical charges for miniascule amounts (after insurance has paid its share) because I get the hospital and related bills from radiologists, doctors groups, etc. (for my kids mostly) many months after the service and I can't remember what the hell they're for so they go in a drawer that rarely sees the light of day. I need a personal bookkeeper, bad.