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

he will if he buys insurance through the exchange. He probably incurred this bill by going to the emergency room. He will be making monthly payments that he can afford based on his income even if it is only $1.00 a month. That is how it works for individuals that go to the emergency room and are treated first by the ER doctors and staff and then put in a room and assigned a doctor unless you have a personal provider that is on staff. You can't get blood from a turnip. By that I mean that no hospital or doctor/surgeon will refuse treatment that is essential to saving a persons life regardless of their ability to pay or whether they have insurance. That is how it worked prior to Obamacare. But I have to say that may change since the majority of individuals will find that purchasing insurance through the "exchange' may offer "some" the opportunity to purchase insurance and may or may not provide premium assistance to pay the monthly premium but their deductible will likely by so high it is unaffordable as will their annual out of pocket. Plus if they find job if they are currently unemployed or a job that increases their salary above the "HHS poverty level|" they will be required to pay back the amount they received in premium assistance. Yes this is a bummer, read the bill!

 

You can't get blood from a turnip! He may have incurred this bill but the hospital and the providers that charge separately of the Hospital will work out a payment plan based on his salary. Even if that means he pays $1.00/month. If he had insurance and the Hospital was a provider on his insurance plan, then he would only owe his share of the amount his insurance "approved" for payment(the amount the Hospital and its doctor agreed to accept). So, if he was treated at a Hospital and by doctors on his "insurance plan" and had a 20% copayment the insurance company approved over $100,000.00 for his care/treatment. This is if he was treated "in network. If he was treated at a hospital and providers who were out of his "insurance network" his co-payment would be much higher. And if he had no insurance and sought emergency room treatment he would be charged the total amount but could negotiate an affordable payment based on his income.

Not sure what his circumstances were.

 

Sadly with the deductibles and copayments quoted on the EXChange regardless whether the monthly premium is affordable, this will be a common scenario for many.

 

For starters, the United States did not dominate the world for 250 years. Our prestige, power, and homogony did not really begin until after WWII, and that was mainly because Europe was shot to hell during that war. Prior to 1898, we were viewed as a backwards, third world country in which we struggled against the massive, dominating colonial powers of England, France,and Germany, among others.

Most of our polices between 1787 to 1898 dealt with our internal politics where conflicts arose. This was with the Indian Wars, Civil War, Mexican American War, and expansion with the various purchases. Ir wasn't until after the War of 1812 that military academies were deemed important by Thomas Jefferson, who some 20 years earlier, argued that they were not part of the Constitution.

Almost Every President expanded the role of government with some more than others. Lincoln expanded the role of government far more than FDR did. Jackson expanded the role of government and paid off the debt, for only ony year than what Obama or Bush has done. The concept of "limited government": is based not no size of the government, but what the Constitution allows. And that is where the rub really is because we are still dealing with how to define "necessary and proper" for what Congress can pass and not pass.

Articles of Confederation was a complete disaster and when the New Constitution was passed, Shay's rebellion quickly dispersed. At that time, with a massive army led by George Washington, to a group of rebels over whiskey taxes, that was an intrusive government back then.

 

And we call that a 'fix'? Look, more people getting health insurance isn't a bad thing in of itself(though changing the system, or in other words getting away from the insurance companies would be better). But forcing others to "get insurance' just so "vulnerable group C" can get insurance is not only impractical and immoral, but it's also very unfair.

If we take this decision as it regards health insurance, whose to stop the government from dictating what we eat or drink? For as much as Liberals claim they're all for the "choices" people make, it seems only when/if it coincides with their own.

It might surprise you guys, but people do disagree. And they're all not sick, stubborn people either. They're healthy people who'd rather not waste some good hard-earned cash.

 

But this is a common scenario prior to Obamacare as well.

I have looked at the bill, it either appears that some service was out of network, whether it was the hospital, the surgeons, or the medical evaluations. Second, this is a prime case of someone not reading their policy at all.

 

A Representative republic is an indirect democracy. We have democratic, or democracy driven, principles to openly elect our representatives who will in turn make the decisions for the good of the people. This is contrary to a parliamentarian form of government, which is a direct democracy.

Both a representative republic and a parliamentarian form of government are democracies with different emphasis on where and how the decision making is done.

 

You are a fool then.

 

Maybe for the same reason they aren't responsible to feed me, house me or pay my utility bill...or maybe you think they should do that to.

 

Whether the Articles of Confederation were a disaster is a matter of perspective. George Washington didn't lead or have a massive Army to quell the Whiskey Rebellion either nor was a shot required to suppress it. It was militia's from three States which Washington led into Western Pennsylvania.

 

Profit in the capitalist system can only be abtained by the trust from the consumer. Meaning....if Blue Cross Blue Sheild cut expenses to their non-profitable customers then they wouldn't make a profit because they would go out of business. Private companies pay attention to perception---one hyped up news story could bring a company down.

This isn't a problem for the government however. The government does what it wants to do---with almost no repercussions....because they make the laws, enforce the laws and that's that. So if they need to cut spending by dropping care from a non-productive person---government can't be fired and people can't find a more trustworthy source under a universal system.

Also---government doesn't know what its doing. Besides dropping care from expensive patients to save--they underpay doctors and medical facilities to the point where for profit hospitals may not accept Obama Care. For profit hospitals provide exceptional care, research and development, have the resources for medical innovation and---can acquire the expensive top of the line equipment. These are the hospitals people from other countries come to for care they can't get elsewhere. Under universal healthcare these facilities would be phased out.

Trusting the profitable marketplace--teeming with competition, is much less risky then trusting ONE entity to set your priorities.

 

The Westminster (parliamentary) model is far more common than the Presidential (representative republic) model. There are many very prosperous nations with the Westminster model. In the Westminster model, the head of state (or ruling party leader, or PM) must represent their party in parliament, not sit in a White House away from the action. Bills are often proposed by the PM's office, not the House, so there is not need for veto power as with the Presidential model. As you stated, in the end, they get the same job done but by using a different process.

 

Because they all rely on OUR tech to serve THEM and protect them, since they generally have little costs in military. You do know where the rest of the world would be medical wise if every medical advancement was never shared? You'd all be &^$(*#!!. Also, every other first world country does not have the QUALITY of care we have. You want compare us to Russia or China? Go ahead, since they're the only ones even in the same stratosphere as far as volume is concerned and VOLUME matters a lot when it comes to how govt systems work. MORE govt doesn't make it more efficient like in theory. It makes is even worse. A country the size of one of our smaller states that can boast how well their system works is a joke. Lets see their piddly systems develop what we develop. Research what we can. They don't have the money, the resources or the talent necessary to do it. But WE DO. ^$*#*#()@ they can't even train their doctors without sending them here first for education.

If other countries had to actually do everything necessary that we do in order to function and serve the rest of the planet, they wouldn't be able to sit back and point fingers, nor would their ignorant citizens.

The total number of illegal aliens that we take care of is more than the total population of some of the countries that criticize us. Seriously, gain some perspective.

And by the way, if all it actually cost was $300/month to get as good of care as we do now, you don't think it would've happened? I'd be glad to pay it. But It hasn't because it doesn't cost a mere few hundred $$$ out of all out pockets. Its MUCH, MUCH more.

Basically any country that claims they have better care then us is due to the sweat of OUR people doing the work that allows them that luxury. Just for grins, imagine if Canada had to actually pay the proportionate costs to protect the landmass that they have. You think they would have the resources to spend on healthcare? hehe.

 

Originally Posted by Taxcutter View Post
Taxcutter says:
I trust the insurance company a lot more than the government.

I too trust the system more that sees the insurance company entering contracts with customers and government providing oversight (statute) and legal remedy (courts) for conflicts. If the insurance company lies, cheats, steals of offers substandard policies the consumer has a disinterested third party (government) with the power to investigate, enforce law and force compliance. The natural governmental role as arbiter between citizens.

This balance is upset when we see the customers doing business directly with the government; there is no disinterested third party available to dispense justice.

AdvancedFundamentalist this isn't a minor thing, it is a fundamental restructuring and one that history has shown over and over more inefficient and ineffective by orders of magnitude.

Cheers
Labour

 

Taxcutter says:
This is one of the two Great Divides that polarizes America.

A lot of people trust the private sector more than government.
A lot of people trust government more than the private sector.
Numbers are apparently roughly even.

Some nihilists trust neither, but the binary US system ignores them.


The other Great Divide:
Some people live off government handouts.
Some people pay taxes.
Numbers are roughly even.


Paralyzed by the divisions, the nation spirals down.

 

Yah and when Ubamacare came around the gov't had to rob from Medicare to help pay for it. This is whats going to happen when the gov't continues to grow out of hand. Forcing those to pay for the ones who can't isn't going to straighten things out. Its just going to make it get more out of control.

 

Health care doesn't fall under that realm of service when the gov't doesn't know how to handle it. They take it over and all that happens is they screw it up.

 

California is not a "pro-market healthcare system", it is a highly regulated and taxed system managed by progressive bureaucrats and politicians in Sacramento. That is why the price system in California is so irrational and inconsistent: How much does an appendectomy cost [in California]? Somewhere between $1,529 and $186,955

If this person had simply shopped around, they could have saved themselves about $53,000, but hardly anyone shops around in the healthcare market anymore because politicians have been insulating people from the price of their healthcare. Why shop around when insurance or government will pay for it? Once again, we see the unintended consequences of political intervention into markets.

[video=youtube;3WnS96NVlMI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI[/video]

 

To extort wealth from people who would otherwise be inclined to keep it.

To mitigate the risk associated with catastrophic health conditions by entering into a mutually voluntary risk-sharing pool.

 

It was more like 13,000 men, which are a little more than 3 regiments. However, the decisive action by Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion is one of the reasons why this form of government has remained in force for over 200 years. The Articles of Confederation was a complete disaster and that is not a matter of perspective from any serious history buff.

 

Why, the government is inefficient and costly. The cost for government running healthcare payments would outstrip the low margin of insurance companies. Don't believe the nonsense that it is cheaper because they do not count the cost of buildings, supplies, and the other agencies that are involved. That was the reasoning used for going through insurance companies with Obamacare to begin with.

 

13,000 militia as there was no regular army.

The Articles of Confederation were effective enough to create a nation. How could that be considered a disaster by any serious history buff?

 

Pretty entitled perspective there.

So that YOU can have a job that YOU desire, the rest of us should subsidize your living expenses in college... so YOU can get to your ideal job faster.

To add insult to injury, you then tell this job that YOU want to be closer to YOUR family.

See a trend here? It appears that your actions typically revolve around YOU, and you expect everybody else's world to do the same.

 

You speak as though the meaning of the General Welfare Clause hasn't been hotly debated precisely because half of the debaters find your presumption utterly false.