Pakistan. That is one thing we don’t have to pay for yet, although I am sure the present finance minister would be delighted to do so. (Spent the today with my accountant, tax returns are due Oct 1st, I had no idea just how many synonyms there are for “surcharge” and “additional”. :mad::().
Truly f$!#&in’ amazing! What about someone driving thru whose car catches fire? What about a new resident to the county, or an indigent, or someone who recently paid but isn’t on the updated list? (All rhetorical, obviously)
I’d think this would be considered an agreement made under duress.
It’s only duress when the pressure is created by the actions of the other party to the contract. I suspect the state has specifically legislated for the enforcement of such agreements, but otherwise it would be an interesting case.
My sister-in-law had a stroke last year (in fact, as I look up the details it was exactly on eyear ago today) and was found unconscious on the floor. We now have power of attorney and have been handling the details. She required an ambulance in full-on emergency mode to take her to the hospital. A week or so later she was transferred to a different hospital by ambulance - a routine transfer. I will show how these trips compare with comments in this thread.
The emergency was handled by the city ambulance service. Cost $611, knocked down by the insurance company to $539. The routine transfer (27 miles) was billed at $1,745, knocked down to $518 by insurance (so then they tried to get the full $1,745 from my SIL. We refused and somehow they got the insurance company to pay the full amount).
Not sure what you mean by “go through the hospital”, but my SIL was billed directly by the ambulance company and many other healthcare providers that were basically subcontracted by the hospital.
The latter part does not necessarily follow from the first. My SIL used city government ambulance but was still billed, albeit rather less than the private ambulance companies were charging.
My MIL routinely throws away medical bills and the providers do not chase her too hard. If your only income is Social Security and you have no assets, you are “judgment proof”. The medical provider could win a case but not have any way of collecting - Social Security cannot be garnished. We are adopting the same approach for my SIL, but in a more organized manner than just ignoring the bills - we point out to her creditors that she has no way of paying and they have no way of collecting, so why don’t they just forget it. How she accumulated $40k of medical debt while having insurance with a $1,200 out of pocket maximum is a whole other thread.
But having it marked down by 100% makes it effectively “free” to her.
If I remember correctly from when people got up in arms about that story, the main issue in that county is that it doesn’t have a fire department. The city provides some services for a fee, but is ultimately not responsible for any of the people in the subscription area, so those questions aren’t really their concern. That’s for the county to deal with, and the people of the county have chosen to deal with it by doing nothing (IIRC they have rejected multiple tax levies to form a county fire district that could contract with the city departments). I think there are actually some pockets of that county that really truly have no fire department at all.
FFS, Brits. Why is it that every time healthcare comes up, the British ignore the fact that we have insurance? You pay a little bit out of every paycheck. In return, you get free healthcare. I pay a little bit out of every paycheck. In return, I get…well, not free, but 90% off in most cases.
89% of Americans have insurance. Some good, some bad. I paid a total of about $4,500 to have a baby. My prescription is $3/month. Doctor visits are $20. For most of us, it’s Not. That. Bad.
It’s as if I said to you “Whaaaat? If your house burns down, the government doesn’t pay to rebuild it? So you’re just fucked?”
Exactly. Most people don’t have to “wing it down,” because our insurance does that contractually. The rest of us can either settle the debt with the provider or default on it.
Yes, poor people have a problem. It’s rough. But that’s a fraction of the US population. The vast majority of us are covered.
There was a pretty extensive thread on this a few years back
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=580852&highlight=burn+department+fire
And the really poor have it covered thru aid programs. It’s that gap- you’re working, you have cheap insurance, you’re doing OK… and then there’s that big bill- that can bankrupt some. We need to get rid of that, and Obamacare is doing that.
Yup. But while we might have to pay for the ambulance (or have insurance) once they get you to a public hospital Emergency department, they’ll do what they need to do and you don’t get a bill for it, whether you have insurance or not
Inmates have to work at the prisons. They do nearly all the jobs from cooking to laundry to janitorial to having better-educated prisoners tutor ones who did not finish high school get their GEDs, and then there are all kinds of things run out of prisons, from call centers to certain kinds of manufacture (usually assembly that does not require a lot of machinery). They even have prisoners doing personal care for other prisoners-- prisoners who are elderly or disabled get their care from specially selected other prisoners. And the prisoners get paid squat. They may get like, $1/hour. The constitution allows for it (it isn’t considered involuntary servitude, in other words), because they are incarcerated. The money saved goes to running the prison, and to victims’ restitution funds.
Also, people who qualify for social security can’t collect it while they are incarcerated. I don’t know if the money goes to the prison, or just back into the social security “pot.”
Then, there have been cases where wealthy inmates have been ordered to pay costs of incarceration. Most inmates are not wealthy, or even just doing OK, though. They don’t have anything to pay for incarceration with, except sweat.
Although the call centers and manufacturing facilities are only allowed to do work for the state, unless the inmate is paid the prevailing wage for the work. That’s why it was so common (and still done in some states) for prisoners to make license plates.
Some states used to sell their prisoners’ wares on the open market, but businesses complained that it was unfair to have to compete with captive slave labor.
We don’t ignore it, we just shake our heads at the blatant unfairness of the system you have. We have insurance in our own country and we are fully aware of the concept.
According to the estimates that I see you pay a lot out of every paycheck (far more than I do and I earn a very good wage) and get healthcare that is limited, adversarial and still leaves you on the hook for 10% at best. That 10% is still enough to drive people into financial hardship or at least cause them to avoid seeking the treatment they need.
And surely it is the “bad” that we should be bothered about. The rich have no problems accessing healthcare under any system and dealing with associated costs, we all know that, but the true worth of a healthcare system is how it treats the poor. 11% of your country has no insurance, that’s over 30 million people. A fair chunk more are on the point where their policies don’t protect them from high costs.
the fact that you think $4500 to have a baby is “Not.That.Bad” is telling. The concept of actually paying to have a baby seems crazy to me.
And what if you get cancer, or need a transplant, facial reconstruction surgery etc? huge ongoing costs of uncertain duration regardless of your insurance cover.
Bad example. No-one is forced to own a house and take on that liability just in order to survive. You can rent something very modest and live quite comfortably without having to to be on the hook for rebuilding a house. You are never going to be in the position of suddenly needing to spend an extra $20,000 this year on housing or you die.
Heck, even if you choose to buy a house and not insure it you at least have a clear idea of what the overall cost it likely to be and so are able to control your liability for future costs by not choosing an expensive house in the first place.
Health is not like that, you have to deal with unknowable health issues that will last an unknowable length of time and you have to be prepared to either foot the bill or die (or at best live in pain and discomfort)
so 11% are totally uncovered, and what percentage of Americans have coverage that is inadequate or leaves them open to costs they can’t bear? And does it not bother you that your system covers less people, less well and yet costs multiple times more per head than universal healthcare systems?
In the US and Canada you have to pay for the Ambulance it not like the UK.
Yes Canada and Australia have universal health services being trips to the family doctor,hospital and medical clinics are covered. But this does not cover Ambulance.
Everyone pays taxes and taxes go into police, fire and ambulance but like every thing else money does not grow on trees.
If everyone started calling the ambulance and taking ride to the ER in ambulance for fall injury, cuts, broken ankle, stomach pain, pneumonia, bronchitis, sprains, cold, flu, skin abscess, swelling, dehydration so on than there would be no available ambulance to go to any other calls coming in.
For repeated false fire or police alarms you have to pay.
I don’t think that analogy works. My partner does not need to buy a dress to live, nor does she pay a compulsory tax aimed towards providing people with dresses. A dress is a purchase with high price elasticity. An ambulance in an emergency has an elasticity of zero.
If part of our taxes went to providing dresses to the population and we did not qualify, while in the next place over the government spends less of the taxes on dresses for the population, and everyone gets a dress -then from our perspective they are getting free dresses.
Well. You pay about 30 % more in taxes for healthcare than the Brits do. Out of your paycheck. The Brits get healthcare for that. You don’t. Then you have to pay more than that out of your paycheck again to get healthcare.
And not all of you get that. And many are underinsured, and live in an existence where a serious illness can mean financial ruin. Whats more, if you get ill and they decide to contest things you get to fight your insurance companies. While ill.
When my sister got diagnosed with cancer, things like coverage, bills, etc didn’t exist. No-one worried about bankruptcy, mortgages, or medical bills, just about what was the best treatment.
And beyond that, the fact that a lot of you have your healthcare depending on your employment status is close to feudalism. Healthcare coverage becomes a factor in your choice of jobs, starting up for your self, taking a gap year, when you retire…
I live in a country with 10 beers. I don't think 4500 to have a baby is bad, I think it is horrific. Although it really pales in comparison to 11 % of the population without anything but emergency coverage.
11 % of the US population is what 30 - 40 million people? I would not consider that “bad” either, I’d say it is beyond horrific.
Australia, Canada and the US emergency or non emergency ride by the ambulance to the hospital you have to pay.
If you get shot or fall of two story roof and unconscious or yes even having stroke or a really bad heart attack and unable to speak you still have to pay. It just you will get your ambulance bill later.
On side note watch the documentary of the hospital in the US kicking people out on to the street!! Because they found out the insurance will not pay or they have no money and no insurance.
Healthcare is privilege not a right in US. If you don’t have money the doctor is not going to see you and run tests and those tests and specialist is more cost.
So what are the doctors and specialists going to do about is COPD? Is he seeing specialist now and getting treatment or help him deal with his medical symptoms.
It hard to believe they would be cold and say you have COPD now go home and do nothing for him.
That’s not really accurate. In Canada the details vary by province but in general ambulance services are substantially covered by the provincial health plans. Unlike other health care services for which there is no co-pay, you may incur a co-pay for the ambulance but you certainly won’t pay $1200. There are a couple of provinces where it can run as much as several hundred dollars, but in Ontario it’s just a $45 co-pay that is rolled into the non-insured part of the hospital bill, like a private room or TV service. And even that is waived for a large category of patients exempt from ambulance fees – for example, elderly persons receiving home care services and many others with special needs are exempt from the co-pay.
From the article linked to above: “The London ambulance service says each patient costs on average £7.81 per 999 call. To be further reviewed on the telephone by a clinician costs £64.59, to receive an ambulance and be treated at home is £155.30, and to receive an ambulance and be taken to hospital costs £254.57.”
Ambulances and trained staff are not *that *much cheaper here.