3 ms·
What gets me is that they probably could afford it out of pocket but didn’t want to deplete savings. For a clear case like this, an insurance denial shouldn’t
by az226 3mo ago
What gets me is that they probably could afford it out of pocket but didn’t want to deplete savings.
For a clear case like this, an insurance denial shouldn’t even be shared with the suicidal patient, their spouse should shield them from that and just pay from their checking account. The life of your spouse is worth more than a few more dollars in retirement.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- recursive 3mo agoCalling it a "few dollars" is probably disingenuous, although we don't know the personal circumstances. For many, this could be a "life-changing" quantity of money.
- maxerickson 3mo agoYou are probably misusing disingenuous. It implies dishonesty (so intention).
- recursive 3mo agoYeah. "Misleading" is maybe better.
- az226 2mo agoLet’s say the cost is $1k per day. That’s say $50k over the 7 weeks. A doctor probably ends up with a $10M or bigger nest egg in retirement. At 4% withdrawal rate, that’s $400k per year, or $33.33k. Spread the $50k expense over say 30 years, that’s $140 less per month. So that means the spend would be $33.2k instead. The difference here isn’t going to register for the household budget. Obviously a lot of assumptions, but this is the pragmatic view.