3 ms·

Excuse me -- your yearly deductible is $10,000? Here I thought €385 was a lot...

monktastic1 5y ago
No, the deductible is much lower. This is the maximum I can spend out of pocket in a year. But most ACA ("Obamacare") plans have no maximum for our of network providers.
- salawat 5y ago
  Actuallly... If it is an ACA plan, there has to be a MOOP. https://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/out-of-pocket-maximum/ https://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/out-of-pocket-ma... Now keep in mind, as mentioned earlier, if you go to an out-of-network provider, and get billed for the balance of what that provider charges and your insurance won't cover, that is now between you and the provider because the insurance claim is technically complete. This is why in some cases you may want to redline the financial responsibility statement and specify you will pay up to a set amount over what your insurer disburses. Technically, the provider can come back and grumble, but if you absolutely cannot afford to get nailed with a notorious "surprise" medical bill, that's a much more "good faith" way to approach the transaction. It sucks... I know.
akomtu 5y ago
You probably pay way more in taxes. If I was given a choice between (1) an additional 20% income tax and free healthcare, or (2) crazy $10k/year out of pocket maximum, I'll choose 2 without a blink.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  At the risk of turning this into a political debate -- yes, you pay more taxes if you earn more, and less taxes if you earn less. That's how a society is supposed to work: you don't leave people to suffer because they aren't rich.
  - mgkimsal 5y ago
    And at some point, perhaps you'll still get reasonable health care without it being tied to some employment (whether or not you were/are highly paid). Much harder to rely on that in the US.
  - sneak 5y ago
    We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones, or banking, or any other modern good or service that is essential and required for every member of society. Why do we do it for health care or health care insurance? If the justification is "everyone needs it and you will die without it" then shouldn't farms and supermarkets also be public utilities? The line seems entirely arbitrary to me. Water yes, but food no? Why education and healthcare? Why not heating and electric power? The added benefit of letting people arrange it individually is that those with a higher risk appetite are not forced into it (at significant personal expense) against their will/consent, too.
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      > We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones, or banking, or any other modern good or service that is essential and required for every member of society. We certainly do: taxes fund social programs like welfare and subsidies, which allow every member of society to afford a baseline level of food, housing and transportation. Back in World War II, food supplies were rationed precisely because everyone needs them, so food vendors have certainly faced regulation in times of scarcity. Farmers still receive sizable EU and US subsidies. [1] [2] In the US, the government purchased bulk amounts of foods for decades. [3] [1] https://farmsubsidy.org/ https://farmsubsidy.org/ [2] https://farm.ewg.org/ https://farm.ewg.org/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese
    - fineIllregister 5y ago
      > We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones. We don't buy bulk food because it's a commodity with low entry costs, and between subsidies and SNAP we can keep food almost universally available. We should be doing more, because people do fall through the gaps and our agriculture subsidies could be better directed. We subsidize transportation and oil to keep costs down. We should do more to expand free at the point of access mass transit. There are means-tested programs for cell phones paid entirely by tye federal government (you may hear them coloquially referred to as "Obamaphones"). Many people believe basic, low cost banking services should be provided through the USPS. I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren is an advocate for this policy. > Why do we do it for health care or health care insurance? Health care and health insurance are different from the other examples you listed. If a person is in dire need of care, they are unlikely to be able to shop around. They might not even be in a condition to prove they are able to pay, so we require hospitals to treat people without waiting for such proof, which means providers can take on significant losses which need to be covered. And to keep costs down in such a system where you cover these cases, it makes sense to invest in preventative care, up to the point of paying people to get it. Entry costs to starting a hospital or becoming a health care professional are high because people want some standard of safety. This lumits competition that makes your other examples work. > Water yes, but food no? Why education and healthcare? Why not heating and electric power? Yes to all of the above. Since you added heating and electric, often low income will qualify someone for assistance, eapecially heating in colder regions. Since the market functions well enough for people with sone money, means testing seems to work well enough here. > The added benefit of letting people arrange it individually is that those with a higher risk appetite are not forced into it (at significant personal expense) against their will/consent, too. The challenge is that if you make people arrange it individually, there is incentive to underestimate the risk (higher risk means higher premiums) and then they might need care that they cannot afford. The health care system sometimes still incurs this cost because they might have to provide emergency treatment (and many conditions untreated due to costs can become emergencies).
mgkimsal 5y ago
I have 8 numbers (well... 6 and 2 'no max)... DED-INN/OON Me: $7k/$35k Fam: $14k/$70k OOP Max-INN/OON Me: $7k/no max Fam: $14k/no max I regret leaving my grandfathered plan from 2010 - every year I got a threat saying it would be gone next year, then magically one more 'extension' with a threat that it would be gone next year again. And the price kept going up. Switched to ACA plan and... I missed this 'no max' stuff. Fingers crossed I don't need healthcare if I'm ... you know, outside whatever 'network' might happen to take me in for care.

No, the deductible is much lower. This is the maximum I can spend out of pocket in a year. But most ACA ("Obamacare") plans have no maximum for our of network providers.

salawat 5y ago
Actuallly... If it is an ACA plan, there has to be a MOOP. https://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/out-of-pocket-maximum/ https://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/out-of-pocket-ma... Now keep in mind, as mentioned earlier, if you go to an out-of-network provider, and get billed for the balance of what that provider charges and your insurance won't cover, that is now between you and the provider because the insurance claim is technically complete. This is why in some cases you may want to redline the financial responsibility statement and specify you will pay up to a set amount over what your insurer disburses. Technically, the provider can come back and grumble, but if you absolutely cannot afford to get nailed with a notorious "surprise" medical bill, that's a much more "good faith" way to approach the transaction. It sucks... I know.

akomtu 5y ago

You probably pay way more in taxes. If I was given a choice between (1) an additional 20% income tax and free healthcare, or (2) crazy $10k/year out of pocket maximum, I'll choose 2 without a blink.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago
At the risk of turning this into a political debate -- yes, you pay more taxes if you earn more, and less taxes if you earn less. That's how a society is supposed to work: you don't leave people to suffer because they aren't rich.
- mgkimsal 5y ago
  And at some point, perhaps you'll still get reasonable health care without it being tied to some employment (whether or not you were/are highly paid). Much harder to rely on that in the US.
- sneak 5y ago
  We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones, or banking, or any other modern good or service that is essential and required for every member of society. Why do we do it for health care or health care insurance? If the justification is "everyone needs it and you will die without it" then shouldn't farms and supermarkets also be public utilities? The line seems entirely arbitrary to me. Water yes, but food no? Why education and healthcare? Why not heating and electric power? The added benefit of letting people arrange it individually is that those with a higher risk appetite are not forced into it (at significant personal expense) against their will/consent, too.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    > We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones, or banking, or any other modern good or service that is essential and required for every member of society. We certainly do: taxes fund social programs like welfare and subsidies, which allow every member of society to afford a baseline level of food, housing and transportation. Back in World War II, food supplies were rationed precisely because everyone needs them, so food vendors have certainly faced regulation in times of scarcity. Farmers still receive sizable EU and US subsidies. [1] [2] In the US, the government purchased bulk amounts of foods for decades. [3] [1] https://farmsubsidy.org/ https://farmsubsidy.org/ [2] https://farm.ewg.org/ https://farm.ewg.org/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese
  - fineIllregister 5y ago
    > We don't use tax money to bulk buy food, or auto repair, or fuel, or computers, or phones. We don't buy bulk food because it's a commodity with low entry costs, and between subsidies and SNAP we can keep food almost universally available. We should be doing more, because people do fall through the gaps and our agriculture subsidies could be better directed. We subsidize transportation and oil to keep costs down. We should do more to expand free at the point of access mass transit. There are means-tested programs for cell phones paid entirely by tye federal government (you may hear them coloquially referred to as "Obamaphones"). Many people believe basic, low cost banking services should be provided through the USPS. I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren is an advocate for this policy. > Why do we do it for health care or health care insurance? Health care and health insurance are different from the other examples you listed. If a person is in dire need of care, they are unlikely to be able to shop around. They might not even be in a condition to prove they are able to pay, so we require hospitals to treat people without waiting for such proof, which means providers can take on significant losses which need to be covered. And to keep costs down in such a system where you cover these cases, it makes sense to invest in preventative care, up to the point of paying people to get it. Entry costs to starting a hospital or becoming a health care professional are high because people want some standard of safety. This lumits competition that makes your other examples work. > Water yes, but food no? Why education and healthcare? Why not heating and electric power? Yes to all of the above. Since you added heating and electric, often low income will qualify someone for assistance, eapecially heating in colder regions. Since the market functions well enough for people with sone money, means testing seems to work well enough here. > The added benefit of letting people arrange it individually is that those with a higher risk appetite are not forced into it (at significant personal expense) against their will/consent, too. The challenge is that if you make people arrange it individually, there is incentive to underestimate the risk (higher risk means higher premiums) and then they might need care that they cannot afford. The health care system sometimes still incurs this cost because they might have to provide emergency treatment (and many conditions untreated due to costs can become emergencies).

mgkimsal 5y ago

I have 8 numbers (well... 6 and 2 'no max)... DED-INN/OON Me: $7k/$35k Fam: $14k/$70k OOP Max-INN/OON Me: $7k/no max Fam: $14k/no max I regret leaving my grandfathered plan from 2010 - every year I got a threat saying it would be gone next year, then magically one more 'extension' with a threat that it would be gone next year again. And the price kept going up. Switched to ACA plan and... I missed this 'no max' stuff. Fingers crossed I don't need healthcare if I'm ... you know, outside whatever 'network' might happen to take me in for care.