Snake-bite victim socked with $55K bill

[Mr. Gibs]

You run that risk with ANY type of insurance.

Except with insurance it's generally my choice. I can choose which provider I want, how much coverage I want etc. With social security I can't choose any of that.

Then if I remain a permanent resident and 20 years from now decide that I want to move to, say, Germany, well there goes all my social security contributions. It's not wasted because I never had a need for them, it's wasted because the US government requires perm. residents to live here in order to collect the benefits they paid for (it's automatically deducted from your paycheck whether you like it or not).

Yes I can become a citizen and not have to deal with that, but then I'm subject to double taxation if I ever move abroad.

---

To briefly explain SSA it's something everybody who works in the US pays into. It's automatically deducted from your paycheck and the amount varies based on how much you earn. Then when you turn 65 (?) you can start to collect benefits from it (ie the government sends you a check every month). What's funny is if your benefits are quite a lot (ie you had a high paying job) you then have to pay taxes on those benefits...

[Shadrack]

Very true.

 

Basic plans aren't excessive and could serve as very good catastrophic care gap plans when needed. I used to pay ~$120/m for a very good catastrophic level plan for my wife because it was cheaper than adding her to my healthcare at work (remember preventative care is free on all plans).

 

$120/m seems expensive, but it is about the same as people tend to spend on their cell phone or cable tv bills.

Not true, the insurance will cover whatever the doctor says she needs and is allowed on her specific plan. The patient isn't forced to tell the doctor "you can only give me one pain pill because two is excessive and they won't pay for the second one."...

 

At least this is how it works in the US...

Not true.  Insurance routinely deny patient care in spite of Dr. recommendations.  Source: me.

[FloatingFatMan]

Except with insurance it's generally my choice. I can choose which provider I want, how much coverage I want etc. With social security I can't choose any of that.

Then if I remain a permanent resident and 20 years from now decide that I want to move to, say, Germany, well there goes all my social security contributions. It's not wasted because I never had a need for them, it's wasted because the US government requires perm. residents to live here in order to collect the benefits they paid for (it's automatically deducted from your paycheck whether you like it or not).

Yes I can become a citizen and not have to deal with that, but then I'm subject to double taxation if I ever move abroad.

---

To briefly explain SSA it's something everybody who works in the US pays into. It's automatically deducted from your paycheck and the amount varies based on how much you earn. Then when you turn 65 (?) you can start to collect benefits from it (ie the government sends you a check every month). What's funny is if your benefits are quite a lot (ie you had a high paying job) you then have to pay taxes on those benefits...

 

That's really no different to any social healthcare system; except that in Europe at least, you can still access free healthcare due to international agreements.

[soldier1st]

It seems it is more expensive to heal a person then it is to injure them. broken system we all got. Wheres the logic in that?

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Simple question,

Do we have such a horrid health care system because the majority of us do not care about each other?

Or just do not have any power over our government?

[tmorris1]

That's really no different to any social healthcare system; except that in Europe at least, you can still access free healthcare due to international agreements.

There is no such thing as free.  That social system is starting to show that it doesn't work.  Look at some of the European countries that are imploding.  You can keep giving things away and have it be sustainable.

[Dinggus]

Oh no! Things like this is why I keep insurance. You can't afford to be without it.

 

ObamaCare!

[FloatingFatMan]

There is no such thing as free.  That social system is starting to show that it doesn't work.  Look at some of the European countries that are imploding.  You can keep giving things away and have it be sustainable.

 

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.

[tmorris1]

ObamaCare!

How is that working out?  They can't even agree on what it is even though they have already passed it.  They will delay it until after the election because it is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Hum]

Simple question,

Do we have such a horrid health care system because the majority of us do not care about each other?

Or just do not have any power over our government?

Basically, there are just too many humans.

 

Reproduction is out of control.

 

The quality of life and caring drops.

 

Earth needs some limits. ;)

[Dinggus]

How is that working out?  They can't even agree on what it is even though they have already passed it.  They will delay it until after the election because it is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

I don't claim it.

[Skin]

Yet another reminder of how broken the US healthcare system is.

 

This is actually a generic ###### statement meant to gather a kneejerk emotional response.

 

In all honesty, what is broken specifically is the insurance industry, not so much the actual healthcare part of it. Unfortunately, the government has allowed big business to step all over people and DRs due to a lot of things. Granted, 55k is a lot of money, until you break down how long she was there, what medication she used, etc. After all, if she HAD insurance, she would only be looking at a few hundred dollars - very reasonable indeed.

 

It's when people are uninsured that the collectors come a calling - as there is no one in the average persons corner to stop the madness and cover the hospitals costs. Overall, tort reform and insurance practices are where the broken parts are, yet they will NEVER be fixed right, as they are a powerful lobby.

[Skin]

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.

 

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

 

Really, no difference, except in other countries, you HAVE to pay into it with taxes, and in the USA, well, until recently when a new law was passed, you had a real choice on whether you wanted to gamble with your health and savings accounts by not carrying insurance. Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.

[FlintyV]

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

 

Really, no difference, except in other countries, you HAVE to pay into it with taxes, and in the USA, well, until recently when a new law was passed, you had a real choice on whether you wanted to gamble with your health and savings accounts by not carrying insurance. Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.

 

Wait, you just said it's not free at the point of service and then essentially contradicted yourself. 

[Skin]

Wait, you just said it's not free at the point of service and then essentially contradicted yourself. 

 

no, no i did not.

[FlintyV]

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.

 

 

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

 

..... Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.

 

So what exactly are you correcting FloatingFatMan on?

[Skin]

 

 

 

 

So what exactly are you correcting FloatingFatMan on?

 

 

 

Free at point of use. Sure, you pay for it in taxes, but when you need it, it's essentially free.

[DeadEndAccount]

I think the government needs to do more to hold the feet of hospitals to the fire. Fortunately, here in Philadelphia charity care is very common and good. My wife had to go to the ER for an issue a couple of years ago and due to some messes with the health insurance company she didn't have coverage. The hospital waived almost all the charges and allowed us to pay a flat $99 for the ER visit. People shouldn't be murdered financially over medical issues, but it is a hard chestnut to crack.

 

Why should the hospitals be punished when the problem goes a lot deeper - a society that sues almost at the drop of a hat thus necessitating high medical indemnity insurance for employees, people who aren't able to pay their bills meaning the cost is spread on all the ones who can pay the cost etc. In the end someone ends up paying, either directly through the unpaid for medical expenses being spread over other patients or to the insurance companies themselves. The real solution is to actually have a single payer healthcare system, to get rid of suing and negotiate medicine prices by putting downward pressure on suppliers through bulk purchasing and use of generics - but hey, something like that would be labelled as 'communist' and 'death panels' like what happened during the Obamacare debate (which btw I don't support because it was little more than a kick back to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry).

[adrynalyne]

Why should the hospitals be punished when the problem goes a lot deeper - a society that sues almost at the drop of a hat thus necessitating high medical indemnity insurance for employees, people who aren't able to pay their bills meaning the cost is spread on all the ones who can pay the cost etc. In the end someone ends up paying, either directly through the unpaid for medical expenses being spread over other patients or to the insurance companies themselves. The real solution is to actually have a single payer healthcare system, to get rid of suing and negotiate medicine prices by putting downward pressure on suppliers through bulk purchasing and use of generics - but hey, something like that would be labelled as 'communist' and 'death panels' like what happened during the Obamacare debate (which btw I don't support because it was little more than a kick back to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry).

Insurance covers lawsuits....its called malpractice insurance.  The problem most definitely includes the hospital.

 

I've seen too many bills posted online of little paper cups for medicine being charged to the patient for hundreds of dollars.  How can anyone see that as acceptable?

[Skin]

I've seen too many bills posted online of little paper cups for medicine being charged to the patient for hundreds of dollars.  How can anyone see that as acceptable?

 

Well, it isn't just the meds that are factored into the cost. There's the nurse that got it, the pharmacist that filled it, the maintenance that cleaned your vomit off the floor cause you were allergic to it, or didn't take with food, etc.

 

Why do people look at the cost and assume that it is unreasonable without factoring in all the things that had to happen for someone to get that pill.

 

Hospitals cover costs inside what they charge. Insurance understands this and builds in set costs that are 'acceptable' and billed. Even with reform, this would happen, except government (single payer ultimately) would stifle competition, and bring a stagnation even worse than what is happening now.

 

Reform would be nice though, just less government intrusion, and more codes and enforcement of practices and anti-fraud and lawsuits for frivolous reasons.

[FloatingFatMan]

Except it's not. You pay into it, the same as people pay for insurance out of pocket or from their paychecks.

Really, no difference, except in other countries, you HAVE to pay into it with taxes, and in the USA, well, until recently when a new law was passed, you had a real choice on whether you wanted to gamble with your health and savings accounts by not carrying insurance. Either way, you pay - slicing it this way and that really makes little difference, except ease of use on one end, and more work on the other.

How is that any different to what I said?

Our NHS is paid for in our taxes, but when we actually come to use it, it's free.

[Skin]

How is that any different to what I said?

Our NHS is paid for in our taxes, but when we actually come to use it, it's free.

 

No, it isn't free. You already paid for it. Words like free sully the conversation when used frivolously in a dialogue about healthcare.

 

The original point was in response to the essentially free statement. The point being, is people use words like free, or essentially free, or add point of sale or whatever, to the saying. Except, it isn't free, nor essentially free. You paid for it all along, just like others do in other ways.

 

Your original point comes across as 'hey, it's free when I need it', but it glosses over the fact you pay all the time, like others do on their checks, but instead of the government getting it, it goes to another party. Money changes hands in both examples, and the service is paid for at the time it is used - how it is collected is minutia.

 

Also, I went further into explaining how it differs as in the US, you weren't technically forced into participating, whereas in other countries, you have no choice.

[FloatingFatMan]

It IS free, at point of use. Unlike in the US where as well as paying your insurance every month, you also get a bill after a hospital or doctor visit, we don't.

We pay our national insurance automatically from our pay checks, and that's it. There is no bill after a visit.

You need to work on your English comprehension a bit. :p

[adrynalyne]

Well, it isn't just the meds that are factored into the cost. There's the nurse that got it, the pharmacist that filled it, the maintenance that cleaned your vomit off the floor cause you were allergic to it, or didn't take with food, etc.

 

Why do people look at the cost and assume that it is unreasonable without factoring in all the things that had to happen for someone to get that pill.

 

Hospitals cover costs inside what they charge. Insurance understands this and builds in set costs that are 'acceptable' and billed. Even with reform, this would happen, except government (single payer ultimately) would stifle competition, and bring a stagnation even worse than what is happening now.

 

Reform would be nice though, just less government intrusion, and more codes and enforcement of practices and anti-fraud and lawsuits for frivolous reasons.

Yeah, it is a lot of wages to pay to use a little white paper cup.  :rolleyes:

[Growled Member]

It IS free, at point of use. 

But ultimately it is not free, though. Just seems that way because you don't pay when you use it.