Not one of your links provides any evidence of Sutter being anything close to a monopoly. They do not own the market in California or Sacramento, and the are many other major healthcare providers here including Kaiser.
"Anti-Trust" actions cover a wide variety of anti competitive behaviors.
Additionally, you are misleading people on the cost of an ambulance ride by conflating out-of-network prices and/or medically unnecessary rides.
"Balance Billing" for out of network ambulance rides is now illegal, and uninsured people are capped at billings equal to Medi-Cal.
You’re obtuse. They’re charging more for comparable services in a lower cost of living area of the state, they get away with it because they are effectively a monopoly and there are no real alternatives or competition. They have even been sued and settled anti-competitive behaviors which is evidence to my point… They may not be the literal only healthcare provider but they are clearly able to use their size and scale to rip off locals. Otherwise there’s no other reason Sacramento should be the most expensive place to give birth… it’s a no brainer. You probably work for them or some other PR firm to spread propaganda like this.
> Additionally, you are misleading people on the cost of an ambulance ride by conflating out-of-network prices and/or medically unnecessary rides.
How am I misleading? Those were my real experiences. It’s not like the 911 operator asks about your insurance and makes sure the ambulance is in network. What about when the ambulance is called for you? How is that “unnecessary” if you don’t even have a choice?
I bet you get paid to spread propaganda and lies. This shit is why America sucks—we all get worse healthcare so some rip off company can pay shills like you to spread lies and misinformation. The only people who benefit from the US system are insurance and healthcare executives. We get objectively worse care for objectively higher costs. It’s lose lose for the average person.
> They have even been sued and settled anti-competitive behaviors which is evidence to my point…
No, its not. Its actually evidence against your point that the conditions alleged in the suit – which even in the accusations in the suit were the product of practices discontinued in the settlement – are the current conditions.
(The fact that of the two parallel suits on largely the same allegations covering the same time period under state and federal law, they won the federal suit outright at trial after settling the state suit, is also evidence against the conditions alleged in those suits having been facts even at the time covered by the suits.)
> you are misleading people on the cost of an ambulance ride by conflating out-of-network prices
So I get in an accident and break my leg, someone calls me an ambulance, and while I'm screaming in pain I also need to ask to make sure they get an "in-network ambulance"?
> So I get in an accident and break my leg, someone calls me an ambulance, and while I’m screaming in pain I also need to ask to make sure they get an “in-network ambulance”?
No, because as stated in GP, “‘Balance Billing’ for out of network ambulance rides is now illegal.”
"Anti-Trust" actions cover a wide variety of anti competitive behaviors.
Additionally, you are misleading people on the cost of an ambulance ride by conflating out-of-network prices and/or medically unnecessary rides.
"Balance Billing" for out of network ambulance rides is now illegal, and uninsured people are capped at billings equal to Medi-Cal.