11 ms·
I’m on Medicare, but I still got stuck with a $25k hospital bill
- kaushikktiwari 7y agoMedical debt in the United States is another one of those defining monuments to inequality we have erected in the past decade another being the student debt crisis.
- anchpop 7y agoIronically, the severity of the student debt crisis would be reduced significantly if we made need-based scholarships illegal
- tyre 7y agoCould you expand on this? On first glance it seems like only the well-off would go to college. I won’t respond further unless I’m sure I understand your proposal
- leplen 7y agoNeed based scholarships allow universities to have nearly perfect price discrimination. This allows them to charge different prices to different consumers and extract the maximum amount each consumer is willing/able to pay. If they had to charge everyone the same price, that price would be considerably lower than the sticker prices now.
- Paul-ish 7y agoAre there studies on this, or is this just what we expect from economic theory?
- apexalpha 7y agoJust think of it like this. If Harvard would charge $2000 in tuition each year but they raise the price $1000 for every $10k your parents make. Sounds ridiculous right? So the make the price $30.000 and give discounts if your parents don't make $100.000 instead.
- foogazi 7y agoSchools would not close but adjust their spending and stop building luxury campuses Education loans just bring more money into the system and inflate tuition, just like how 0% down mortgages inflate real estate prices
- GoodJokes 7y agoIronically, the student debt crisis would be eliminated if we made college free and eliminated said debt. Soak the rich 2020
- hanniabu 7y agoThe issue is that whenever anybody tries to fix it they're labelled as a socialist because that's how the right wing media has trained people to react. Apparently the only options are absolute survival-of-the-richest capitalism or Soviet Union socialism with no in betweens, go figure. In my opinion, democracy is dead and we're at a point where you can buy votes via professional gaslighting and mass misinformation.
- rayiner 7y agoPeople aren’t labeled socialist for fixing billing surprises. Trump is pushing a bill to do just that. People are labeled socialist for proposing new federal programs that will cost trillions of dollars more per year, on top of the $6-7 trillion a year that federal, state, and local governments already spend each year. Moreover, people are labeled socialist for proposing solutions, such as single payer, that are in the more government-run end of the overall spectrum of universal healthcare systems. Instead of trying to refine the ACA, for example, which would give us something like the Dutch or Swiss system, people are pushing for single payer and banning private health insurance, which is overall to the left of the various universal healthcare systems that exist.
- deogeo 7y ago> banning private health insurance I don't think anyone is opposed to letting people buy private insurance on top of the obligatory single payer. Does any country actually ban additional private insurance?
- DaiPlusPlus 7y agoWell... Cuba, I guess. I wonder how travel health insurance works for tourists there.
- javagram 7y agohttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/does-medicare-all-end-private-insurance-depends-which-candidate-you-n1005071 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/does-medicare... “ In fact, the bill would outright ban private insurance that provides similar coverage to the new Medicare for All plans after a short transition period. That means everyone with comprehensive employee benefits or a private plan through the Affordable Care Act today would be moved onto Medicare. [. . .] Sanders has said he envisions these remaining plans covering a handful of items like cosmetic surgery that are left out of Medicare. For everything else, the only option is Medicare.”
- stygiansonic 7y agoOf note, the author is a physician and also a professor: “Andrew Taylor is a professor of radiology and imaging sciences at Emory University School of Medicine.”
- viburnum 7y agoI love how everyone is susposed to be an expert in medical billing now. It’s hopeless. There’s no way people can beat the system on their own. Hospital chains, private equity, billing software consultants, these people are gunning for you every day. There’s no way you can compete with that.
- pan69 7y agoIt seems that that is what capitalism has become, the creation of many niche complex systems of which one can never be an expert.
- javagram 7y agoThis is mainly an issue with healthcare in the US, not “capitalism”. The fact that providers can perform services on you without telling you up-front what the price will be is the problem. That isn’t how a lot of the rest of our capitalist society works - Amazon can’t raise the price of something I order from them after it’s shipped to me, my rent can’t change once I sign the lease contract which clearly states the charges up front, and so on...
- pan69 7y ago> The fact that providers can perform services on you without telling you up-front what the price will be is the problem. Of course. In an unregulated for-profit health care system that is definitely the problem and the way we got there was because of; if there are multiple vendors then prices will automatically go down. I'm not anti-capitalism. It just doesn't work for certain parts of society but it seems that in the US everything needs to be capitalised and the government clearly doesn't want to regulate this industry.
- javagram 7y agoThis article itself is about someone who is on Medicare (government-run health insurance) getting a surprise bill because the hospital has mis-assigned his procedure to the wrong category to allow them to run up the bill. FTA: “In a feeble attempt to ameliorate the problem, Congress passed the Notice Act in 2015, which requires hospitals to inform patients of the implications of their observation status within 36 hours after observation services have been initiated. In other words, hospitals must advise patients of their observation status only after they have already incurred the expense of surgery and hospitalization.” This type of thing seems like the most immediate problem. It makes no sense that the price can be raised 36 hours after a procedure has already begun. How is anyone supposed to negotiate that properly? Just saying, I don’t think “capitalism” is necessarily the boogeyman here. The government itself is failing to negotiate properly with the providers when running its socialist healthcare system in this instance. (And non-government payers will run into the same problems, getting unfair bills that couldn’t be anticipated or negotiated before agreeing to the service)
- droopyEyelids 7y agoUnethical behavior by providers (like this) hasn't been addressed by any of the candidates on either side of the aisle. Getting rid of insurance companies is only part of the equation, as far as I can tell. It could help quite a bit. But until we address the adversarial position that providers themselves take towards their patients, we're going to have galling and disgusting outcomes.
- elif 7y agoI think it is natural that when the government is picking up the tab, the government will necessarily follow through with regulations that protect their own interests. It is definitely the horse needed before the cart, and expecting a pharmaceutical/insurance funded government to pass the requisite regulations against its own interests would be cart first. Unless of course, we could somehow acquire a government that acts on the interests of the people.
- madez 7y agoAs an outsider, it seems Bernie Sanders is a candidate that seriously wants to tackle these serious problems in the USA. Apart from that, I wonder why the society in the USA is so adversarial. It is apparent in many aspects and it is damaging for the society. There are ways to reduce to adversity, but it seems that many people support and favour an adversial system. Is that a cultural curse of the USA?
- gorbachev 7y agoIt's adversarial, because it's good strategy for winning elections. In a two-party system, there's no need to compromise. All you need to do is to beat one person (generally speaking). The worst way to do that is to agree on anything with the other person. You want as many wedge issues as you can, if your constituents are in favor of your position. If they're not, you attack the other person's character. Preferably you do both. It's been this way for a very long time, and it's only getting worse.
- madez 7y ago
- esotericn 7y agoIs there an equivalent of a 'do not resuscitate' tattoo or something you can get that's along the lines of 'do not perform for-pay medical care on me'? If I were in the US, travelling, I'd only want immediate life saving treatment (a heart attack, say) to take effect unless I was absolutely sure of the precise cost of what I was submitting myself for. It baffles me that you can be billed unknown amounts for this. I don't do _anything_ without knowing roughly how much it costs. My rent? Known before signing. Utilities? Rates are published, there's a meter on the wall. Supermarket? Prices are right there. Taxi? Has a meter, or it's fixed price private hire. The only example I can come up with right now where prices aren't generally known before the fact is the pub. If you serve me a pint and claim it costs 15 quid rather than the expected ~5, you better believe that you're pouring that down the sink. I drove by a road toll today in Norway that cost $1. I'm given enough time to turn around and decide not to use that road. Yet Americans are getting slammed for multiple years' income whilst they're essentially unconscious? Absolute madness.
- duxup 7y ago>do not perform for-pay medical care on me It would be impossible as even doctors and hospital staff straight up don't know what is covered and what isn't from person to person with much confidence....let alone the actual pricing.
- esotericn 7y agoIn that case then, my desired tattoo is essentially "resuscitate, that's it, I'll work the rest out myself"? Heh.
- coldtea 7y agoAs if they can't slap 2-3 procedures costing several grand during the resuscitating process and say they were "essential" when they were not required at all? Good like proving otherwise...
- geitir 7y agoEven with tattoos they will generally resuscitate you unless they can find signed papers
- btrettel 7y agoIs there a compilation of many of the "gotchas" (like this) that can be pulled in medical billing in the US? A wiki or GitHub repo would be a good place to start compiling them. Alternatively, post about any you know of here.
- vsskanth 7y agoWell, hospitals aren't required to tell you what a given procedure is going to cost before doing it, so basically it boils down to: If you get really sick, "gotcha".
- troydavis 7y agoIf you can ignore the title, http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-care/ http://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-ca... is a fascinating view into the actual cost of delivering surgery/hospital service. They price and sell surgery directly to patients and employers. Whatever one’s view of their approach, I learned a lot from the episode.
- refurb 7y agoEcon talk is a fantastic podcast. Yes, the host has a libertarian bent, but it doesn’t stop him from interviewing people with opposing viewpoints. When the 2008 crash happened, I listened to the episode and learned a ton. He always invites people with deep knowledge of the issues.
- nugget 7y agoAnother common misconception about medicare is that they won't deny tests or procedures that your physician deems medically necessary. Medicare can and does issue such denials. I worked next to a family medicine MD with a primarily medicare/medicaid patient panel and he would spend at least two hours per clinic day on the phone arguing with various counter parties about the medical necessity of certain orders he had submitted. He said it was by far the most frustrating part of his job. If you look at where CMS policy is headed, I would expect more care dictated by flow charts and algorithms and less autonomy in the hands of physicians.
- disabled 7y agoYeah, if the Americans on here were smart, they would investigate things about their healthcare system further, especially when it comes to being on Medicare and retired. For that they should study the Kaiser Family Foundation's Website, backwards and forwards. One can end up in a situation where they need an extremely expensive, lifesaving medication, that subjects them to Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage levels. I have Medicare and if I lose my employer based insurance coverage through a family member, I will have to pay $50,000/year to stay alive. This is something I cannot afford as I am disabled. Not to mention, the third leading cause of death in the United States is preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me, then Google it. You can go to the absolute best institutions, hospitals, and doctors, but you cannot evade a statistic like that. It is way to pervasive. Our healthcare system, along with is quality, are absolutely deplorable. But the good news is, most people on here are educated and are skilled workers. They can emigrate to other countries. I would recommend the European Union countries in general, but obviously Western Europe and Northern Europe are better. But, anywhere in the European Union really is a step up from American-style care. I am a European Union citizen. I am Croatian, besides being American. I am leaving the United States soon. I cannot wait to start a new life and adventure. I am tired of living in fear about my healthcare.
- nugget 7y agoIn many areas of practice the US provides some of the best care in the world. Places like MD Anderson in Houston and Sloan in NYC attract sick people from all over the world for a reason. It's fair to credit these institutions for what they do well. >you cannot evade a statistic like that The best advice I tell people is to make sure you have a patient advocate (family member or friend) with you 24/7 when you are hospitalized aka "in the system". I stayed with a friend for a one week hospitalization and witnessed multiple preventable medical errors that could have resulted in intubation and admission to the ICU (and perhaps death). I had to physically intervene to prevent the administration of a contraindicated drug which my friend had explicitly declined. I had to diagnose and fix faulty bedside telemetry myself. I had to retrain the CNAs on how to accurately collect sublingual temperature readings. The entire experience was quite eye opening. I've never spent time in a hospital in Europe but I would be surprised if the benefit of an advocate was not somewhat universal.
- gok 7y agoThere's no real fix for this outside of a banning providers from billing patients directly. As long as there is any legal route to people paying expenses directly, doctors will find sneaky ways to trick people into doing that.
- deogeo 7y ago> doctors You mean hospital administration and private equity firms buying hospitals and squeezing them for all they can.
- gok 7y agoI mean doctors. Cost of medical care is directly attributable to doctors enforcing a cartel of care availability.
- deogeo 7y agoYet the US has approximately the same number of doctors per capita as Canada and the UK [1]. And the cost of healthcare in the US has sharply risen in the past few decades - presumably due to some unreported restriction in the supply of doctors? [1] https://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce/physicians_density/en/ https://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce/physicians_density/...
- gok 7y agoAll three have few doctors compared to other rich countries. In the UK and Canada there are price controls which means this is bad for doctors but good (well, cheap) for patients. In the US this scarcity just means exorbitant pay for doctors. And yes those dreaded administrators too.
- SQL2219 7y agoWell, you had a good run, and a run from a system which probably paid out millions in salary over the years. "My wife and I are both physicians, but neither of us had any clue that this could be the case."
- ThomPete 7y agoCall them and tell you can pay 5k and they would most likely agree.
- disabled 7y agoI have Medicare, as I am on disability. I am working on finishing my education, as I only have 1 year left of engineering school, in electrical engineering, before I enter the workforce. I require a blood product in order to survive. If I ONLY had Medicare (I don't--I also have employer-based insurance through a family member), I can expect to pay around $50,000/year for my care, due to Part D catastrophic coverage levels. I can definitely expect to have to pay $50,000/year soon if the Affordable Care Act is abolished. Fortunately, I am a European Union citizen, but it would be tremendously sad to have to leave the United States, my homeland, over this. I really cannot go on a Medicare Advantage plan, which might resolve this issue, as I have a very rare condition that only a few doctors in my area are qualified to treat. Most Medicare Advantage plans are HMOs too. You also cannot switch back to traditional Medicare ever, once you get a Medicare Advantage plan. I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas by population too. It puts me in a strange place where I can almost be guaranteed not to get the care I need. My care is unbelievably complex. It is very common to be admitted to the hospital by Medicare under observational status. I am surprised that the person writing this article was unaware of this, but almost everybody outside the healthcare field is unaware of it. There are also some really, really strange rules with respect to emergency room visits and being admitted under observational status by Medicare. It also takes a lot of time to look them up and understand them. The Medicare Part B premium is typically $135/month for most Americans. This covers 80% of your costs for outpatient care, doctors visits, medical supplies, etc., under traditional Medicare (not a Medicare Advantage plan). To cover for the remaining 20% (which you should get coverage for--you are foolish not to) you need to get a Medigap plan. Those can be expensive. I know this is unbelievably complex, and is a huge waste of time to have to go and understand, to prevent yourself from getting in trouble, if you have Medicare. It is ridiculous. However, the author was being penny-wise and dollar foolish. It is very, very common for people to explicitly elect to have Medicare Parts A and B if they have traditional Medicare. Saving $135/month over something that could get you in trouble is not smart in the American healthcare system. Yes, his situation should have never happened, in a decent healthcare system. It is sad. But he did make some pretty big mistakes, especially considering he is a doctor. But, he did not deserve this.
- omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago>You also cannot switch back to traditional Medicare ever, once you get a Medicare Advantage plan. You can change plans during the annual enrollment period, from October 15 through December 7. You can enroll in or switch advantage plans or just go back to plain Medicare. If you're on plain Medicare, you can also switch to a 5-star advantage plan between December 8 and November 30. https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/when-can-i-join-a-health-or-drug-plan/5-star-special-enrollment-period https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/when-can-i-joi...
- tempsy 7y agoThis is very misleading and surprising that a physician would make such a mistake. It seems that he only had Medicare Part A, which is not alone really health insurance it is strictly for hospitalizations and has no premium. I think of it more like catastrophic insurance. Medicare Part B is actually health insurance and requires a premium. He casually mentions that he didn’t have Part B but unclear why. The 20% coinsurance he paid is what you’d pay under Part B, and unclear what other insurance he has, but for a high earner you should always buy Medigap which reduces the 20% since like in this example can still be thousands of dollars.
- zaroth 7y agoIn fact he admits that he has a Blue Cross plan (probably a sort of Medicare Advantage plan) that covered 80% of the bill. But it’s obscured by the headline and the long rant preceding the admission. > I wasn’t enrolled in Part B, but did have Blue Cross/Blue Shield supplemental insurance, which required me to pay 20% of the allowable hospital and surgical charges.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tempsy 7y agoNot sure what this means. Medigap is supplemental insurance that reduces the 20% coinsurance responsibility. If he didn’t have Part B then he couldn’t have bought this. Medicare Advantage is just A+B from a private insurance company.
- disabled 7y agoExactly. He made a big mistake. I suspect that he did not elect to have Medicare Part B, as he likely had private, employer-based insurance, which did not require him to. Usually the Medicare Part B premium is around $135/month. He was being penny-wise and dollar foolish, as Medicare Part B covers 80% of doctor's visits, outpatient care, medical supplies, etc. He probably would not need a Medigap plan, which covers the remaining 20% of Part B expenses, if he had employer-based insurance as creditable coverage. He really should have known that Medicare is relegating certain hospitalizations to Part B. This is very common and not new news. However, the rules involved with it, from the ER to the actual floor, are really strange and take a lot of time to understand. Yeah, you have to know and understand a ton of ridiculous rules prior to going on to Medicare. It is an unbelievable waste of time. Then, once you are on Medicare, you have to continue to keep a look-out of what is going on, including investigating certain rules, as things frequently change. He has my sympathies as this sort of situation should never exist in a developed, civilized country, like the United States. But, he made a series of mistakes, passively mostly, which got him in to this situation.
- ransom1538 7y ago[deleted]
- cma 7y agoObamacare abolished maximums, for essential health benefits (emergency care, necessary surgery, prescription drugs, etc.): https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/lifetime-and-yearly-limits/ https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/lifet... https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/ https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-c... If the plan qualifies for meeting the mandate, there shouldn't be maximums on essentials.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago> Your home, your 401k, is easy pickings for a bankruptcy court. No, they are not. 401k is a protected asset, and is basically off limits to creditors. Similarly, it depends on the state, but most states provide for homestead protection from creditors. In some states, like Texas, the homestead protection amount is unlimited.
- reilly3000 7y ago401k isn’t eligible for bankruptcy liquidation, but all else is. You’re not wrong about the whole situation, it’s a financial bloodbath.
- javagram 7y agoFYI, there are good arguments that the 2/3 number is significantly misleading. For instance, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ “ However, the magnitude of the bankruptcy effect is much smaller than previously thought: we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above.”
- disabled 7y agoThis. Every single American should take your comment to heart 100%. I am an American in her 30s, on disability, who has Medicare. I am looking to return to the workforce, after I complete my final year of engineering school, in electrical engineering. I require a blood product that costs $300,000/year in order to survive. I have 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system, which are in pharmaceutical remission, thanks to this medicine. It is the only thing that has worked, and we have tried about 10 treatments, plus combinations of them. It is my only option. In addition to having Medicare, I also have employer-based insurance through a family member. For reasons which I will not discuss, it is extremely likely that I will lose this coverage if the Affordable Care Act is partly or completely repealed. I can expect to pay at least $50,000/year for this via Medicare coverage, if it is my only insurance, as I will be subjected to Part D catastrophic coverage levels. Obviously, I cannot afford to. One would be lucky to be able to afford this, even if they saved and were living on a huge pile of money, which is unlikely even working as an engineer. Living in the US is just not worth it. You would be lucky not to need an exorbitantly expensive medication at some point in your life. Cancer meds are unbelievably expensive too. Almost half of cancer patients exhaust their lifetime savings within 2 years of diagnosis. 62% are in debt from it. Besides stuff like that, in the US the third leading cause of death is preventable medical errors (if you do not believe me, Google it), which is on par with third world countries. You can go to the best institutions and get the best possible medical care, but I can assure you that you cannot evade that statistic, with it being #3 as the cause of death. I want to work in the US but with my healthcare being so tied to my insurance, it really does not work for me. This country is no place to live, if you want to survive your health problems. The best place to go, in general, if you are concerned about healthcare are the European Union countries. They do not discriminate on the basis of your health status, but you will have to work and earn your citizenship. You can also get citizenship by descent. I naturalized as Croatian (also as an European Union citizen), as I cannot afford to risk my health here any more. My situation is more precarious than one would think.
- zaroth 7y agoThe headline is incorrect. The patient did not get stuck with a $25k hospital bill. The patient co-insurance was 20% of $25k or $5k. Still a lot of money for surgery and 2 days in the hospital, but not $25k.
- tssva 7y agoSince the amount billed typically is several times the negotiated rate between a healthcare provider and an insurance company and the 20% is based upon what the insurance company actually paid the patient likely paid significantly less than even $5k.
- cgrealy 7y agoEvery time I read a story about medical care in the US I am reminded why I decided to live somewhere else.
- jasonlotito 7y agoWhich is funny considering we moved from Canada to the US because of the health care.
- ralphc 7y agoCare to elaborate on this? All we hear about is how behind the US is on health care, at least on the cost.
- frogperson 7y agoWhy are hospitals allowed to withhold the price of service until after treatment? No other business that I know of is allowed to get away with this kind of behavior. You don't sign a contract to buy a car, then find out the price later. Isn't there some precandent in law somewhere saying that one parting cant change an agreement after the fact or they would be acting in bad faith? Are hospitals acting in bad faith?
- lr4444lr 7y agoPart of the problem is that for many procedures, there are subprocedures or emergency measures or just unexpected routes that doctors have to take in order to complete the objective you did consent to which tack on charges. But TBH, I'm not convinced why they shouldn't just be forced to eat these costs as a matter of labor contingency like every other business, and raise the overall procedure cost to an amount that would cover the odds of this happening and tell us up front.
- frogperson 7y agoI agree. If i contract to have a house built, I understand there can be over runs, but those are treated as a special case. I still know, with fairly good certainty, what the final cost will be up front.
- robomartin 7y agoThe Trump administration has a bill in the works that requires hospitals (and I believe all medical professionals) to publish the cost of their sevices. Of course, it is being fought because Trump is behind it. Politics is the relinquishing of critical thinking in favor of the interests of political parties. It is a disgusting, corrupt ecosystem populated by equally disgusting and corrupt people. The only way someone like Trump comes into the scene is because things have become so putrid in politics that people decide their only option is to send someone into the White House who is perfectly comfortable throwing feces around.
- war1025 7y ago
- chkaloon 7y agoWhy didn't he have Part B? I'm guessing that would have covered it. There's more to this story I'm thinking.
- ccleve 7y agoThe answer is not what the author wants -- to close this one particular loophole. The answer is force price transparency, which is what we have in almost every other market. In other words, you have to be told what the price is, in advance, and you have to agree to it. If that doesn't happen, and the provider tries to hit you with charges you haven't agreed to, then it's fraud. Let's give credit where credit is due on this: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.974595/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.97459...
- tamaharbor 7y agoJust think how wonderful “Medicare for All” will be!
- maximente 7y agoat this point it seems not unreasonable to say that the collective dark parasitic menace associated with the medical system in the US (to include all of the following: leadership, admins, providers, policymakers, etc. is actively hostile towards individual citizens of the US. the whole charade of nobly helping people should be pretty well dead and buried by now: it's all about dollars and extracting the maximum possible. i am not surprised to learn that seniors are also exposed to some goofy backdoor likely engineered by some clever lobbyists ages ago. from where i sit the risk of existential financial danger of being inside the US is probably not worth it for the vast majority of those no longer earning a normalish W2 income. what's the point staying in the US for "retirement" when you can get clobbered by some technicality? some people may figuratively and literally live to fight another day but you'll probably do battle with this monster until you die warding off literal mercenaries trying to get you to pay the bill... and whatever assets you have tried to build up over the years as well. given that a large percentage of the US economy is based on this behavior (and not really getting any smaller; it's big source of jobs - check job growth reports), it's fairly unreasonable to think it will get better before it gets worse. i am not optimistic that even if Sanders were elected he could fix this. there are too many grubby hands in the money pot, and it is too easy to sell the people on the """cost""" because second order effects (lost productivity, mental health issues, crime, ability to change jobs/situations without fear of death or permanent ruin, deleterious effects on youth without access etc.) are completely ignored. big numbers on federal budgets are too easy for those of the Free Market mindset to fixate upon. i would humbly submit that if you are worried at all about this, there are lots of opportunities to take a social security income and live out a respectable life and/or death in countries where you are not treated like a financial bloodbag to be reaped and tossed aside. a lot of these places would be happy to have your dollars and you'd also reduce your contributions to this system.
- disabled 7y agoAmericans: Pay attention the the above comment and take it to heart. I urge you to, as a dual national of both the United States and the European Union (Croatia). I am also on Medicare, as I am disabled. One would be foolish to underestimate this comment and the overall situation it describes. It is unwinnable. You can very easily end up paying a fortune every single year during your lifetime ($20,000/year-$100,000/year) for medications that are covered under Medicare Part D, due to a clause called Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage levels, just so you can stay alive. There are people in the top 1% that cannot afford these sorts of costs during retirement. To top it off, the third leading cause of death in the United States is preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me, Google it. You can go to the very best institutions, hospitals, and doctors, but nobody can evade a statistic like that. The problem is just way to invasive and ingrained in to how we give healthcare in the United States. If you want to stay alive long-term, then the best thing to do is to emigrate, particularly to a European Union country. They never discriminate on the basis of health status (including the cost of your healthcare or care), but you do have to be able to work to stay on a visa to eventually acquire citizenship. Obviously western or northern Europe is more desirable, but anywhere in the European Union is a step up in quality from the chaos of our system.
- GoodJokes 7y agoHealthcare should not be for profit full stop. Any other explanations in this thread justifying this are inhumane. We deserve better.
- mam2 7y agoWhats the pblem if you just dont pay ?