Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[jinx]

What about them?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now my brother, who is 54, reasonably healthy, and single, has decided to drop his health insurance which costs him close to $500 a month. He figures it's cheaper to pay the federal and state(MA) penalties, then buy insurance (pre-existing conditions allowed) if something serious develops.

Is there a flaw to this reasoning?

The flaw is that if you have an unanticipated catastrophic event l(like a car accident that leaves you in coma or with serious internal injuries or a massive coronary while having dinner one night or just out for a walk....not something serious developing over time in which you can scam the system and get coverage for a pre-existing condition), you face a huge bill or bankruptcy.

Sure, the odds are in your favor that it wont happen. I guess one has to decide if its worth the risk to yourself and your family.

If I were a young person, I might consider it more seriously than at the age of 54.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Cancer, heart disease, crippling accidents, and all the others ills that human flesh is heir to.

Well, no, it's not the cancer, because that gets diagnosed first, and then treatment takes awhile--plenty of time to buy insurance and get the treatment covered. But a sudden heart attack: that rush to the ER and immediate bypass surgery isn't going to be covered. The crippling car accident, that surgery isn't going to be covered. There are plenty of terrible things that can happen that aren't cured over the long term, but rather incur giant costs right then and there.

Of course, the reality is we will still treat the uninsured who show up at the ER, even if they haven't paid their yearly penalties. So as long as your brother is cool with having to declare bankruptcy after the fact if he does need an emergency procedure, then yes, his logic makes sense for his situation.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Of course, the reality is we will still treat the uninsured who show up at the ER, even if they haven't paid their yearly penalties. So as long as your brother is cool with having to declare bankruptcy after the fact if he does need an emergency procedure, then yes, his logic makes sense for his situation.

Consider also that after declaring bankruptcy, if you have another catastrophic medical emergency within 6-7 years, you cant declare bankruptcy again and you should expect to have some percent of your wages garnished...or you can hire a lawyer and fight it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

The flaw is that if you have an unanticipated catastrophic event...

Ah yes, thanks, I'll pass that along.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So as long as your brother is cool with having to declare bankruptcy after the fact if he does need an emergency procedure, then yes, his logic makes sense for his situation.

No, we own considerable property, and he owns commercial buildings, so that would not be a happy prospect.

But you know how those Republicans are always scheming, although I think he's been voting Libertarian in the last few.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

If I were a young person, I might consider it more seriously than at the age of 54.

You're an old fart aren't ya? lol


TRUST ME PEOPLE - Coming from personal experience, you do not want to go without insurance. A bad driver in another car... a fall down the stairs, there are a million things that can happen.

I'll give you a little taste of what the stakes are -
3 weeks in a trauma ward = about $1,000,000.
4 months in rehab center = $660,000 (bed fee) +++ meds, supplies...

[xoxoxoBruce]

When I started working, we used to laugh at the $1,000,000 family limit on out health insurance policies. Christ, who could ever use that up?

Now they've doubled it and I still know 4 people who maxed out.

[glatt]

A close friend fainted while in line at the grocery store. She landed on her jaw and broke it into five pieces. She spent a week in the hospital and was able to go home on Christmas Eve with her jaw wired shut and pins holding it together.

She was just standing there in line. No previous medical conditions.

Fortunately, she has medical insurance to pay the tens of thousands of dollars of hospital and plastic surgery bills. Unfortunately, she doesn't have dental, and she is eventually going to need bridge work to replace some of the teeth she lost.

Having no insurance is a gamble.

[classicman]

In that case glatt - her dental issues arose from a medical situation and should be covered by her medical insurance - not dental.
(again speaking from experience I wish I had none of)

[glatt]

cool. I'll mention that to her.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The flaw is that if you have an unanticipated catastrophic event l(like a car accident that leaves you in coma or with serious internal injuries or a massive coronary while having dinner one night or just out for a walk....not something serious developing over time in which you can scam the system and get coverage for a pre-existing condition), you face a huge bill or bankruptcy.

Sure, the odds are in your favor that it wont happen. I guess one has to decide if its worth the risk to yourself and your family.

If I were a young person, I might consider it more seriously than at the age of 54.

Under the new plan if you have no insurance you just have to pay the penalty and then buy insurance to cover you. Since you are so sick you will not be able to work and have no income so you can just get the government to pay it. People with absolutely no money get that kind of care all the time.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Under the new plan if you have no insurance you just have to pay the penalty and then buy insurance to cover you. Since you are so sick you will not be able to work and have no income so you can just get the government to pay it. People with absolutely no money get that kind of care all the time.

If you have no insurance and have a heart attack, accident, sports injury....it might result in being out of work for a short period of time, but you still are accountable for the bill.

Under the new plan, these are not pre-existing conditions and you cannot suddenly decide you want insurance retroactively for such an event.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Under the new plan, these are not pre-existing conditions and you cannot suddenly decide you want insurance retroactively for such an event.

Really? It says that in the new bill? Got a link to that?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? It says that in the new bill? Got a link to that?

Damn, Merc.

The bill covers treatment moving forward for pre-existing conditions....not to recover retroactive expenses.

Search the bill yourself.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Damn, Merc.

The bill covers treatment moving forward for pre-existing conditions....not to recover retroactive expenses.

Search the bill yourself.

Well once the bill is passed, in whatever form it will be it allows for no clause for a pre-existing condition. So if I have a heart attack, and a week later get health insurance, they have to cover my heart conditon. Maybe not the inital bill, because I would be responsible for that first week, but since I have no income they would just have to write off the costs. But after that I should be good to go. Pay the fine, since I don't have health insurance, buy insurance, don't have enough to pay for it because I don't have a job, get the government to pay for it. Good to go!