Insured 20 year old man stuck with $11,000 hospital bill

Yeah... I know people living in first-world multi-party democracies who think it's funny the way American's are told they can have either a red pill or a blue pill, without noticing it's the same entity offering them both.

 

sounds like he has a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty plan

 

That would be hillarious to watch in action. You should talk your school into letting the kids set up a model government to try out for a few weeks to see how it tunrs out (letting kids run model governments is a common form of political education in lots of the other first-world democracies).

You've been reading retro-delusion history if you think that.

 

Because it is redistribution of wealth by force. That is the road the USSR took.

 

Actually, I didn't point to any country. I simply asked what difference universal-insurance makes based on the population size.

If you have a bigger population, it just means you've got more people to pay into it, so it alll evens out on a per-capital basis.

But from what you're saying, you seem to think it won't work in the US because not everybody pays taxes. So that means you think universal health-insurance is paid for with taxes?

 

You're funny. In the first place, the USSR didn't have taxes.

In the second place, I guess you're refering to the "forced" redistribution of wealth used by Soloman to "create jobs" for all those otherwise unemployed artisans and craftsmen to build the first Temple, right? You do understand that all the artisans and craftsmen did was turn around and spend the money back on the people who'd been taxed in the first place, such that there was no net loss of wealth, but now the people had a Temple.

The only time the ancient Israelis got ticked off about taxes was when Soloman gave a years worth of taxes to elite Sheba, who didn't need the money, and who then took it out of the country, causing a net loss of wealth to the nation, like how taxes were used to bail out GM, and then, as soon as it became profitable again, it was given back into the hands of the elite for a net loss of $10.5 billion to the taxpayers, who will turn around and invest it in China.

But I see your point. You want to make a fortune doing some kind of conquest such as super-bonusing yourself after scumming to the top of a corporation until you can afford to build a castle with a moat so you can safely sit inside and pig-out on roast boar and get drunk while watching women dance in skimpy clothing while people outside starve. Nothing new about that. The only difference is that back in the old days people had to fight with swords and risk getting killed to get that kind of position... now you get to stealth-attack with weapons like derivatives using fictional money for fuel.

 

Everything requires effort and effort of another through either the use of their goods or labor must be compensated. There is no formula by which this procedure could be done without cost.

Now that said, $11,000 for a life saving thoracic laparoscopic surgery to remove an inflamed organ isn't a bad deal. It's a hell of a value. The problem is this procedure on average, as I search it on-line, costs $12,000 with no complications. So I think we're being snowed a little.

However that aside, I see no problem with a policy that has required 20% exposure up to $11,000 out of pocket (but has covered everything over that.) That's catastrophic coverage, I suggest that the young man negotiate a payment plan with the hospital and start making payments. The payments will be less than his auto and the value is not even in the same realm. I also don't doubt that the hospital will negotiate the total bill down and also charge zero or minimal interest on the balance.

This is how most people deal with deductibles and out-of-pocket health costs, they pay what they owe. Many would have you believe in the "cost shifting" argument that people don't pay their hospital bills, that's untrue. The vast majority pay.

While I feel for this young man, his malady while not out of the ordinary affects a small percentage of the population. It's what insurance is for, the rare chance that you hit one of these health emergencies. 250,000 cases per year in the U.S. A male has about a 7% lifetime chance.

Policy

Who should pay for the out of pocket expense? Society or the individual? I think the individual. The argument that these type and range bills aren't being paid isn't correct. I don't think society can afford zero deductible 100% coverage for every little to medium issue.

Cheers
Labour

 

And in many democracies, minorities are prime for oppression.

Which is my point.

 

It actually did happen.

And for 250 years, the United States ABSOLUTELY DOMINATED the planet.

Only in progressive la-la land is the idea of limited government hillarious.

How so?

Are you seriously going to try and act as though the massive invasive size of central government in the United States has been around since the founding?

 

I really don't care what the rest of the word thinks. He apparently has to pay about 20% so I assume that is his co-pay. My policy would have capped the out of pockets at a little more than half that amount but the Washington DC brain trust apparently sees my policy as so inadequate that it has to be grandfathered.

 

So? People got smarter. The original interpretation of all things American-government wise also allowed for slavery and didn't let women vote.

What's wrong with improving your civilization as knowlege improves? If you were a 19th century doctor, would you ignore progressives like Pastuer and insist on continuing treatments with leeches?

 

What math do you come up with that less than 50% of the people paying taxes just pay an extra couple hundred and somehow pay for the health insurance of themselves plus the other 50% who don't pay taxes? Im a math guy can you post the calculation you used to derive a couple hundred extra dollars? I pay taxes, every year I pay a couple hundred more dollars and get less.

 

Exactly.

But because a republic can be considered a form of democracy, a representative one, then that causes liberals to completely ignore the fact that a democracy is mob rule.

Its re-writing definitions and understandings to avoid fact.

They are good at that.

 

That's true. But that doesn't change the fact that America is a type of democracy.

 

No it didn't. That didn't start until after WW-II, when all the competition in Europe and Asia were crippled bombed-out infrastructures.

In fact, for most of America's history, it was Great Britian dominating the planet. You do know that the US dollar didn't get adopted as the world's international currency until the early 50's, right? Prior to that it was the British pound.

Not on the same scale ... it was a new country with a small population and they were still figuring things out... but it was way more than the limited functions you describe. Offhand, the first thing to come to mind was early creation of the patent system, which lots of people like yourself ranted against at the time because they thought it was government meddling with free-enterprise.

 

Because progressives are far more enlightened than our primitive founding fathers. That is what conservatives don't comprehend. Our founding fathers weren't gods.

 

Yes, I agree.

Point being though, that when speaking about trust in government, simply because one partakes in the election process, doesn't mean that they are protected from oppression.

Not to preach, but everybody should be skeptical about putting too much faith in elected officials who have the capability at will to use force against those (or factions of those) with whom they are supposed to represent.

It isn't like this has never happened in our society or others around the world.

Though its convenient to look to those who represent us, to take care of us, its the lazy way of buying our way into oppression.

Thats all I am saying.

 

Defeatist's attitude.

 

For a couple of hundred dollars? Nice job of pulling a meaningless figure out of thin air and then presenting it as having merit. Laughable, of course, but nice just the same.

Wait a second. I thought we needed the ACA. That is what Obama and the liberals on this forum have been telling us for years now. In fact, they have been viciously attacking anyone who questioned that assertion. You mean they have been wrong all this time and the opponents of the ACA have been right?

Would I be correct if I assumed that you were one of the very people defending Obamacare and telling us we need it?

Was Danny Williams laughing at the US when he came here for heart surgery rather than having it done in Canada? Are the foreigners laughing as they travel to the US to get their cancer treatment at places like M.D. Anderson?

 

If they are willing to accept payments I don't see the problem. Unfortunately they want you to sign over your house or max out your credit cards or take a loan to pay for the simplest procedures, when the average working American just doesn't make the kind of money the health care industry demand.

One emergency room visit these days average around $600 or more, and that doesn't include tests or the doctors fees. That is ridiculously insane.

 

Actually...a decent catastrophic-care policy for a healthy 20-year-old probably WOULD only cost a few hundred dollars!

 

What we need is a posting that isn't from an anonymous kook blog.

Domain Name: VIRALNOVA.COM
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com

 

It's called liberal desperation. Or denial that Obamacare is a failure.

 

Less than $200 per month. Yeah... that's what premiums cost in places like Canada, for 20 year olds, and everyone else. Full coverage, no deductable, etc. etc.

It's because they *everyone* pays in. The only time the government kicks in is when the person is below the poverty line, in which case the government covers their premiums.

And that's pretty-much how it works in all the other first-world democracies. It's only in the USA where people felt a need to get weird about it.

 

My son fainted in the bathroom.. and banged his head. He was rushed to the ER.. 2 hours later his share of the bill was $7,000 ..

Meanwhile, watch for the latest scandal coming out of HCA and Tenent.