7 ms·

"...if she's been getting advantageous rates for years and years this might not even put her into the red overall." I agree on a whole, but this doesn't align

"...if she's been getting advantageous rates for years and years this might not even put her into the red overall." I agree on a whole, but this doesn't align with the day to day reality for many people with these huge bills. With a large percent of the country unable to pay an unexpected $400 bill and living paycheck to paycheck, they won't have the long-term net savings there ready for a time like this. Instead they're in a sudden financial bind roughly equivalent to crashing a car and having it not covered by insurance. People are really bad at understanding low probability events. People had never seen prices in that realm before. Multiply the two, and here we are.

munk-a 6y ago
This is pretty much precisely why I'm socialist leaning - it's much easier to force regular savings in the government than to expect people to independently manage their finances in a responsible manner. And everyone from the poorest to the richest is occasionally bankrupted by a sudden unexpected hurricane. I understand the red scare left people thinking that any kind of socialism will instantly turn into bread lines but I think that allowing more government oversight to make sure those who are left shafted by the tribulations of life get some assistance is the only real ethical choice.