Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

eod.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 215 posts

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#51

Post by _delirium »

waqf wrote: post #37
_delirium wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries bill for emergency stays. US emergency rooms definitely send bills, even if it's acute live-saving treatment. Even Canada, which has national healthcare for residents, will bill nonresidents who visit an ER. If you're from another country, you may get away with just not paying one of those bills, because if it's life-saving care they have to provide it before verifying you can pay. But they'll still tr…

> Even Canada, which has national healthcare for residents, will bill nonresidents who visit an ER. Even Canada? Canada by its location would be at acute risk for medical tourism from the US, if it didn't bill for ER treatment. That problem isn't as big for Europe, Australia, etc.

That makes sense, I agree. The "even" was more given its reputation: most Europeans I know are not surprised that the US sends large bills for ER visits, but don't expect the same from Canada.

I could almost imagine a financially manageable system where Canada gave free ER care to anyone except Americans, but that would produce obvious political problems.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#52

Post by anonymoushn »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #19
_delirium wrote: post #2

Even though I've been researching with interest, so far I haven't run across much in the American healthcare system that makes me question my decision (as an American) to move to Denmark. My taxes are higher, but my costs are very predictable, and by design cannot ever bankrupt me: I pay a flat 8% of my income to support the national healthcare system. I won't end up with a charge equal to 20% or 50% or 500% of my in…

8% sounds great. US currently spends around 16% of GDP on health care every year. I think the majority of Americans would support a universal health care system that provides far more coverage at half the cost. Instead our total spend is expected to double by 2020. Source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/28/news/economy/healthcare_spen...

The great thing is that this expense grows at a rate of 9%/year while the economy is stagnant. If GDP miraculously and immediately begins to grow at 5%/year, health care spending will completely eclipse it in 50 years. If it does not, health care spending will completely eclipse it in 28 years.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#53

Post by slap_shot »

petercooper wrote: post #47

Naïve European who'd pay nothing for this here (ok, taxes, but supposedly we still pay fewer % of our GDP overall) with a question: I’ll have to have to pay less than 6% of that, because I’m lucky enough to still have insurance. Why? If you have insurance, shouldn't that cover the whole expense? Or is it a bit like an excess on a car insurance policy? Can you get insurance that covers everything?

It depends on the policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copayment

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#54

Post by OllieJones »

abtinf wrote: post #12

This is an inappropriate article for HN.

No, sir, it's not inappropriate. The cost of health care is a major cost to most businesses. Startups are lucky that the investors bear the cost; but it shows up as a major line item, second only to salaries, in the typical startup's pro forma expense budget. You could probably stretch your first round 15% further timewise if you could get employees without buying them health insurance.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#55

Post by kefs »

throwaway87654 wrote: post #39
kefs wrote: post #5

As a Canadian, I couldn't imagine having to decide between money and healthcare. I don't know how you guys do it... Relevant reading: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/12/how-i-lost-...

I'm a Canadian who owes tens of thousands because I had an emergency operation in a different province (BC) from where I have my health card (Ontario).

I'm pretty sure OHIP will cover your health expenses, but at the Ontario-based care rates.. You just have to submit receipts to OHIP. Everything extra would be out of pocket, and I see how that could be pricey.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#56

Post by [deleted] »

abtinf wrote: post #36
fiatmoney wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what's a huge barrier to entrepreneurship? Needing the insurance that comes with a BigCo job, so you're not ruined financially when your kid gets bit by a bug. I know many people who have this explicit rationale for not founding or joining a startup.

Then they are grossly misunderstanding relative risks and shouldn't be launching their own startup. And its terrible reasoning. Existing law already provides for cobra, giving them an 18 month window of coverage in which they can retain your employer's insurance (by paying the full premiums). That's more than enough time to validate an idea and secure insurance in the new company, or fail and spend 6 months finding a…

[deleted]

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#57

Post by wmf »

petercooper wrote: post #47

Naïve European who'd pay nothing for this here (ok, taxes, but supposedly we still pay fewer % of our GDP overall) with a question: I’ll have to have to pay less than 6% of that, because I’m lucky enough to still have insurance. Why? If you have insurance, shouldn't that cover the whole expense? Or is it a bit like an excess on a car insurance policy? Can you get insurance that covers everything?

Coinsurance/copays prevent moral hazard. If people paid nothing they would have an incentive to overuse insurance.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#58

Post by api »

The US healthcare system combines everything that is bad about a state-run socialized system with everything that is bad about privately funded care.

To add insult to injury, we do not pay substantially less taxes than, say, Canadians. If we paid Costa Rican taxes I'd be fine with it, but we don't.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#59

Post by vegardx »

_delirium wrote: post #10
vegardx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life saving treatment is usually like this all over the world, and in Denmark they will give you a bill unless you're apart of EU, as you'd have the EU health insurance (EHIC), which is free. This card is also valid in countries in the Schengen Area, like Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein.

Many countries bill for emergency stays. US emergency rooms definitely send bills, even if it's acute live-saving treatment. Even Canada, which has national healthcare for residents, will bill nonresidents who visit an ER. If you're from another country, you may get away with just not paying one of those bills, because if it's life-saving care they have to provide it before verifying you can pay. But they'll still tr…

You're still stuck with a bill, if you're a foreigner. They will treat you, like they will in most of the world. But you're still stuck with a bill afterwards.

Also, unless my memory is totally off, each country has to pay up for EHIC, depending on who used what, and visa versa. So the cost should be evened out.

Edit, because I cannot reply to you later down: I think we have a different view on what emergency medical care is. In most of the world you will get fixed up so that you are no longer in life threatening condition, this is the case in USA, Denmark and Norway. But afterwards you will have to pay, even in Denmark, as long as you're not apart of EU and have the European Health Insurance Card or a citizen of any of the Nordic countries, which has a special agreement.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#60

Post by bhb916 »

cma wrote: post #50
abtinf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is simple. Many folks, myself included, hold the view that it is government intervention that has led to the insane system currently in place. Eliminating the perverse healthcare system forced on us by current policy IS the way to control the cost issue.

Most other industrialized countries have heavy government involvement and pay half what we do with the same outcomes. We just have a hybrid system with capitalism applied in the stupidest way..

This statement sounds totally odd to me on both ends.

First, the US pays more in a lot of markets. By and large, that's because we can.

Second, capitalism isn't applied. That sounds like it's some sort of regulatory tool that just isn't being used correctly. Capitalism is the absence of government force in an economic market with the notable exception of enforcing private property rights. You can say a lot about the US healthcare situation, but "applied capitalism" it is not.

Post reply on HN