His kids are still going to have to pay that bill if they want to inherit anything else he might have. You know like a house or something.
so he'll only be in debt for 83 years?Jay wrote:
It's not like they are asked to pay a lump sum payment. I talked to one guy on another forum, and he had racked up $200,000 in debt because he'd lost his job, and his health coverage, and was diagnosed with cancer six months later. He called up the hospital, claimed hardship, and set up a payment plan. He pays $200/monthAussieReaper wrote:
Health insurance plans rarely cover any and all health-related expenses, so even if you think you're covered there's a good chance you won't be.
What happens when you can't cover the costs based on your insurance? You end up in debt on top of any lost income already incured from your illness.
I don't think throwing another expense at someone who has already likely lost income is a good idea.
What happens to those bills once he is dead?
I dunno. Bankruptcy? He's an extreme example anyway. Most of the uninsured are young and aren't dealing with expensive cancer treatments.AussieReaper wrote:
so he'll only be in debt for 83 years?Jay wrote:
It's not like they are asked to pay a lump sum payment. I talked to one guy on another forum, and he had racked up $200,000 in debt because he'd lost his job, and his health coverage, and was diagnosed with cancer six months later. He called up the hospital, claimed hardship, and set up a payment plan. He pays $200/monthAussieReaper wrote:
Health insurance plans rarely cover any and all health-related expenses, so even if you think you're covered there's a good chance you won't be.
What happens when you can't cover the costs based on your insurance? You end up in debt on top of any lost income already incured from your illness.
I don't think throwing another expense at someone who has already likely lost income is a good idea.
What happens to those bills once he is dead?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy because you suffered from illness. That is insane.
The American Journal of Medicine in 2009 source:
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 … 5/fulltext
Looks like it's not only the uninsured. As I said earlier, even if you are insured, your insurance is not likely to cover everything you think/hope it will. And the insurance companies are hoping for this fact because they are for profit companies.
http://amjmed.blogspot.com/2011/04/ryan … ld-it.htmlA group of Harvard researchers has released multiple studies showing that medical costs contribute to more bankruptcies in the US than any other factor. Reporting in The American Journal of Medicine in 2009...
Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
In other words, patients were almost 2.5 times more likely to go bankrupt because of medical bills in 2007 than in 2001 (when this group conducted its first landmark medical bankruptcy study). And 75% of these bankruptcies were among people who had health insurance.
The American Journal of Medicine in 2009 source:
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 … 5/fulltext
Looks like it's not only the uninsured. As I said earlier, even if you are insured, your insurance is not likely to cover everything you think/hope it will. And the insurance companies are hoping for this fact because they are for profit companies.
Health insurance is not that expensive. It would've been cheaper for them to buy the insurance than face a bankruptcy, no? They had options, they just made poor decisions. Work 30 hours a week at McDonalds and you qualify for health insurance. It's really not hard. The uninsured in America are usually the self-employed and the young. The latter feel invincible and the former choose to spend their money elsewhere. If employers didn't offer insurance to their employees, even more people would choose to spend their money elsewhere rather than on insurance. People don't always make the right choices, and often there are consequences.AussieReaper wrote:
You shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy because you suffered from illness. That is insane.http://amjmed.blogspot.com/2011/04/ryan … ld-it.htmlA group of Harvard researchers has released multiple studies showing that medical costs contribute to more bankruptcies in the US than any other factor. Reporting in The American Journal of Medicine in 2009...
Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
In other words, patients were almost 2.5 times more likely to go bankrupt because of medical bills in 2007 than in 2001 (when this group conducted its first landmark medical bankruptcy study). And 75% of these bankruptcies were among people who had health insurance.
The American Journal of Medicine in 2009 source:
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 … 5/fulltext
Looks like it's not only the uninsured. As I said earlier, even if you are insured, your insurance is not likely to cover everything you think/hope it will. And the insurance companies are hoping for this fact because they are for profit companies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
McInsurance
The most affordable plan at McDonald's charges hourly workers about $14 a week, which comes to $727.48 annually. In return, they get $2,000 worth of coverage per year. If they step on a nail or come down with the flu, they might be covered, but the costs paid by the insurer may not even equal their premiums. If they are diagnosed with cancer, or even appendicitis, they are as vulnerable as someone with no insurance at all.
The "best" plan of the bunch costs $1,680 a year and caps benefits at $10,000. But for outpatient treatment (which often means the emergency room), benefits are capped at $2,000. A trip to the emergency room can zoom past that level in a matter of minutes.
Which is why universal health care that comes out of taxes solves the above.Jay wrote:
The uninsured in America are usually the self-employed and the young. The latter feel invincible and the former choose to spend their money elsewhere. If employers didn't offer insurance to their employees, even more people would choose to spend their money elsewhere rather than on insurance. People don't always make the right choices, and often there are consequences.
How hard a concept is that to understand?
my appendicitis cost like $10,000 (most was billed to insurance). It's not an uncommon affliction, it's not something you really have any control over, and whether you get surgery or let it burst and then take antibiotics (and a whole lot of prayin') it's gonna cost a lot. Better hope you don't get it if you're a McD's worker!
Because we would end up with inferior care. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't mind paying more money for better service. On that same forum, a Canadian poster had to wait 8 months to have shoulder surgery because she wasn't considered a priority and there is a doctor shortage in her province. If I had a major shoulder injury I could go to the doctor today, and have surgery next week if I needed it.AussieReaper wrote:
Which is why universal health care that comes out of taxes solves the above.Jay wrote:
The uninsured in America are usually the self-employed and the young. The latter feel invincible and the former choose to spend their money elsewhere. If employers didn't offer insurance to their employees, even more people would choose to spend their money elsewhere rather than on insurance. People don't always make the right choices, and often there are consequences.
How hard a concept is that to understand?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You can choose to have elective surgery at a private hospital here if you don't want to wait. They are not mutually exclusive having private and public health systems.Jay wrote:
Because we would end up with inferior care. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't mind paying more money for better service. On that same forum, a Canadian poster had to wait 8 months to have shoulder surgery because she wasn't considered a priority and there is a doctor shortage in her province. If I had a major shoulder injury I could go to the doctor today, and have surgery next week if I needed it.AussieReaper wrote:
Which is why universal health care that comes out of taxes solves the above.Jay wrote:
The uninsured in America are usually the self-employed and the young. The latter feel invincible and the former choose to spend their money elsewhere. If employers didn't offer insurance to their employees, even more people would choose to spend their money elsewhere rather than on insurance. People don't always make the right choices, and often there are consequences.
How hard a concept is that to understand?
Why would you end up with inferior care? You pay more for the same service and those who can't afford it file for bankrupcty or falsify the information that submit to the hospitals. That is such a stupid concept I can't find any reason why it's a good thing that appendicitis which I can get treated at a lump sum cost of zero dollars should cost anyone $10000 (thanks hurricat).
So you have both private and public health systems eh? Who pays the doctors salaries?AussieReaper wrote:
You can choose to have elective surgery at a private hospital here if you don't want to wait. They are not mutually exclusive having private and public health systems.Jay wrote:
Because we would end up with inferior care. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't mind paying more money for better service. On that same forum, a Canadian poster had to wait 8 months to have shoulder surgery because she wasn't considered a priority and there is a doctor shortage in her province. If I had a major shoulder injury I could go to the doctor today, and have surgery next week if I needed it.AussieReaper wrote:
Which is why universal health care that comes out of taxes solves the above.
How hard a concept is that to understand?
Why would you end up with inferior care? You pay more for the same service and those who can't afford it file for bankrupcty or falsify the information that submit to the hospitals. That is such a stupid concept I can't find any reason why it's a good thing that appendicitis which I can get treated at a lump sum cost of zero dollars should cost anyone $10000 (thanks hurricat).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
yeah, one of my friends had appendicitis last week. got to surgery within an hour at the hospital, spent 2 nights there, got plenty of painkillers and checkups afterwards.
$0
ive literally never had a problem with waits (and i had to go to the hospital 5 or 6 times last year, 3 of them to emergency), its really only long for specialized things, and for that you can wait, get lucky or go elsewhere. but 99% of injuries and hospital visits its far better and simpler to have universal health care. my health is really not something i should be concerned whether or not i can pay for.
ive been to an american hospital and a health clinic in NYC and definitely waited just as long as any canadian hospital. plus it was free for me
$0
ive literally never had a problem with waits (and i had to go to the hospital 5 or 6 times last year, 3 of them to emergency), its really only long for specialized things, and for that you can wait, get lucky or go elsewhere. but 99% of injuries and hospital visits its far better and simpler to have universal health care. my health is really not something i should be concerned whether or not i can pay for.
ive been to an american hospital and a health clinic in NYC and definitely waited just as long as any canadian hospital. plus it was free for me
You live in Toronto though. See if you receive the same level of care in CalgaryWinston_Churchill wrote:
yeah, one of my friends had appendicitis last week. got to surgery within an hour at the hospital, spent 2 nights there, got plenty of painkillers and checkups afterwards.
$0
ive literally never had a problem with waits (and i had to go to the hospital 5 or 6 times last year, 3 of them to emergency), its really only long for specialized things, and for that you can wait, get lucky or go elsewhere. but 99% of injuries and hospital visits its far better and simpler to have universal health care. my health is really not something i should be concerned whether or not i can pay for.
ive been to an american hospital and a health clinic in NYC and definitely waited just as long as any canadian hospital. plus it was free for me
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If the doctor works for a private hospital, the private health fund company pays his salary. Otherwise the taxpyer.Jay wrote:
So you have both private and public health systems eh? Who pays the doctors salaries?
How much do I as a tax payer pay towards Medicare?
My visit to a GP, diagnosis, hospital stay, surgery and any medication would all be covered if I were suffering appendicitis.The Medicare health scheme is funded by the public during tax time when an income tax surcharge (Medicare levy) of 1.5% is paid by all Australian tax payers with the exception of people who are on a low income. For people who earn more than $70,000 a year an additional 1% – this means that people on an income coming to the value of $70,000 or more pay a minimum of $1,750 for the financial year.
Who pays your doctors when you get appendicitis?
im sure you could do that type of comparison anywhere in the world though. obviously quality is going to be different because doctors want to be in Toronto.
toronto is pretty amazing for hospitals too though, theres at least 10 or so major hospitals within 20 minutes walk of me. many of which are world-class. definitely a good place to look into if any of you are doing med school.
toronto is pretty amazing for hospitals too though, theres at least 10 or so major hospitals within 20 minutes walk of me. many of which are world-class. definitely a good place to look into if any of you are doing med school.
oh and 2 of those hospital visits (1 emerg) were to my small hometown hospital, not a toronto one
The insurance company does. I asked the question because what is stopping your doctors from being private sector only? I would imagine that in a mixed system all of the good talent would end up there.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The private hospitals usually have specialists who work in the private hospital a few days a month but spend most of their time in the public sector. The doctor can work either and/or both if he chooses to. Most doctors work both public and private.Jay wrote:
The insurance company does. I asked the question because what is stopping your doctors from being private sector only? I would imagine that in a mixed system all of the good talent would end up there.
Why would all the good talent end up in the private hospital if the demand for services is weighed more towards the public sector? There are more people who choose the public option simply because of the costs benefits, so that's where most doctors end up working.
Then your system is fucked up and is artificially deflating the value those doctors provide. "Here, you can buy this Kia, or you can buy this Kia with a Rolls Royce emblem on it". Only the fool would choose the emblem.AussieReaper wrote:
The private hospitals usually have specialists who work in the private hospital a few days a month but spend most of their time in the public sector. The doctor can work either and/or both if he chooses to. Most doctors work both public and private.Jay wrote:
The insurance company does. I asked the question because what is stopping your doctors from being private sector only? I would imagine that in a mixed system all of the good talent would end up there.
Why would all the good talent end up in the private hospital if the demand for services is weighed more towards the public sector? There are more people who choose the public option simply because of the costs benefits, so that's where most doctors end up working.
No Aussie, I don't envy your system. Thankfully it will never be implemented here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Artificially deflating the value those doctors provide so that the public can afford healthcare?
The horror!
Maybe you should consider that you live in a society - not simply an economy.
The horror!
Maybe you should consider that you live in a society - not simply an economy.
Maybe you should consider that you are an individual, not a faceless number, and should be allowed to set your own value without government coercion.AussieReaper wrote:
Artificially deflating the value those doctors provide so that the public can afford healthcare?
The horror!
Maybe you should consider that you live in a society - not simply an economy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You care more about the doctors wages than the public health?
Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-12-19 21:15:44)
I care about freedom, yes. I value freedom above anything else. If that means someone somewhere ends up with a $10,000 medical bill because they had poor insurance coverage, so be it. It won't be me. I read fine print.AussieReaper wrote:
You care more about the doctors wages than the public health?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But it will be your friend with cancer who goes $200,000 into debt. Yay freedrom?Jay wrote:
I care about freedom, yes. I value freedom above anything else. If that means someone somewhere ends up with a $10,000 medical bill because they had poor insurance coverage, so be it. It won't be me. I read fine print.AussieReaper wrote:
You care more about the doctors wages than the public health?
No it won't. My friends are smarter than that. I don't think you understand how far of an outlier that story was anyway. It's by no means normal. It's like saying all Aussies will at some point have their child snatched by a dingo.AussieReaper wrote:
But it will be your friend with cancer who goes $200,000 into debt. Yay freedrom?Jay wrote:
I care about freedom, yes. I value freedom above anything else. If that means someone somewhere ends up with a $10,000 medical bill because they had poor insurance coverage, so be it. It won't be me. I read fine print.AussieReaper wrote:
You care more about the doctors wages than the public health?
Last edited by Jay (2011-12-19 21:29:20)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat