4 ms·
It's not for the per-hour, it's for the group-based health insurance, even for part-time employees. If that's what a parent needs to do, then that's the most ef
by adamredwoods 4y ago
It's not for the per-hour, it's for the group-based health insurance, even for part-time employees. If that's what a parent needs to do, then that's the most efficient path.
Even a sliver of insurance allows delays in payments while allowing the hospital to perform service up front. It's lousy to claim bankruptcy over medical bills, but if it gets your child the help they need, this is IMO a viable path.
- hotpotamus 4y agoYes, I have some inkling, though it's interesting that the goal of this seems to have nothing to do with actually paying the medical providers who would presumably be helping the child. I will say that I have friends in all walks of life who do all kinds of jobs, and many of them can't even get coverage for themselves, let alone for families, so it might be more challenging than you think. That said, this is one reason among dozens why I will never have children.