• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The $23,000 bug bite

Blue Mountain

Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Blue Mountain
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
8,615
Location
Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Bug bites ten year old boy; total bill is $23,800

Short version: After a bug bite got infected, the kid ended up with MRSA. It was treated, but the bill is $23,800. The blogger's insurance, still covered by COBRA after his company relocated from California to Texas, is paying about 95% of the bill. He's left to pay "less than 6%"; at 5.5% his portion is $1,300. This after footing the entire health insurance bill himself for probably the last year.

Greg Knauss said:
Everybody did everything right. There’s nobody to blame here except maybe the damned bug. And that single random act — save for some lucky timing and California’s silly determination to look after its citizens — would have blown a hole in the side of our savings that would have taken years to fix. OK, kids, which of you wants to skip college?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the guy was lucky, since he's managed to find the funds to continue his health insurance through COBRA, at least for a while. How many other Americans aren't so lucky?

If this had happened in Canada, I dare say he would be paying zero dollars out-of-pocket for this incident, and he wouldn't have had to pay a huge amount for his health insurance just because his company decided to relocate from Ontario to Alberta. Unfortunately, if the doctor prescribes antibiotics for a few weeks after the boy leaves hospital, he'd likely have to pay for those himself. (I don't know of any provinces that have full prescription coverage. That and dental coverage are sorely lacking from the Canadian system.)
 
yea but your evil socialists and god doesn't love you! Here in "Merika we knows betre thaen to have sooshilist evil muslim un'Merkan save our lifes and health.

If GOD can't do it well then you must be a sinner and the least you diserve is to lose all your savings adn your kids future don't you know.

OH and HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST to take away our freedom by giving us health care. I mean HOW DARE YOU
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
In a lot of other places in the world, the boy would have died..
Click to expand...

Should we bring ourselves down to the levels of a country without hospitals just because some are like that?

Or should we actually try to have a useful healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt most people?
 
The vast majority of MRSA infections are minor. A serious MRSA infection is just the luck of the draw.

And yes, the US health care system under performs compared to countries with NHSs.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
In a lot of other places in the world, the boy would have died..
Click to expand...

Yeah. People bitch about Merika's health care, but I figure we are about 96 percentile.

So Daddy might have gone bankrupt, but the kid would have received amongst the best health care in the world.

What is the MRSA survival rate in China? India? Uzbekistan?

Ask Daddy if he would have chosen bankruptcy to have his kid survive?

I guess I just don't see how UHC can survive when most of the countries of the world are going into debt. Some owe 225% of a GDP in loans, and NONE have a pay-as-you-go Govt benefits package. It's just a matter of time before every country goes bankrupt.

But I don't know what that means. Is it OK to have your whole economy based on social welfare systems? I dunno. Maybe there is an economist that does know. I call it the "Gross Economy". Mega economy? Can a society that bases it self on social welfare succeed? Or maybe there is no downside, nurses instead of farmers is fine, if we all get adequate nutrition? I dunno...
 
casebro said:
So Daddy might have gone bankrupt, but the kid would have received amongst the best health care in the world.
Click to expand...
A Rolls-Royce or a Bugatti is probably the best car in the world, too, but it's of no use to me because I can't access one (that is, I can't afford to buy one.) It's not the best health care if you can't access it (that is, can't afford or find insurance.)

Ask Daddy if he would have chosen bankruptcy to have his kid survive?
Click to expand...
What sort of system makes it thinkable for a person to have to choose bankruptcy over health?

I guess I just don't see how UHC can survive when most of the countries of the world are going into debt. Some owe 225% of a GDP in loans, and NONE have a pay-as-you-go Govt benefits package. It's just a matter of time before every country goes bankrupt.

But I don't know what that means. Is it OK to have your whole economy based on social welfare systems? I dunno. Maybe there is an economist that does know. I call it the "Gross Economy". Mega economy? Can a society that bases it self on social welfare succeed? Or maybe there is no downside, nurses instead of farmers is fine, if we all get adequate nutrition? I dunno...
Click to expand...

Once again it is necessary to point out that the USA spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare while most countries with UHC spend between 7% and 10%. In the US, public spending on health care is nearly 7% of its GDP, for something that covers probably less than 1/3 of its population. Canada spends 7% of its GDP on health care an covers everyone.. The U.K. spends slightly more (Canada 6.84%, UK 6.99%) and covers everybody to a higher standard than Canada does. (Source for all numbers: NationMaster.com)

Your tired argument that a modern nation can't afford to provide healthcare to all its citizens is demonstrably false.
 
Last edited:
Blue Mountain said:
Once again it is necessary to point out that the USA spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare while most countries with UHC spend between 7% and 10%. In the US, public spending on health care is nearly 7% of its GDP, for something that covers probably less than 1/3 of its population. Canada spends 7% of its GDP on health care an covers everyone.. The U.K. spends slightly more (Canada 6.84%, UK 6.99%) and covers everybody to a higher standard than Canada does. (Source for all numbers: NationMaster.com)

Your tired argument that a modern nation can't afford to provide healthcare to all its citizens is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
It is if you realize just who the "they" are they are talking about.

Pharma companies, insurance companies, and the politicians in their pockets.

The citizens on the other hand...
 
LTC8K6 said:
IIRC, there has been a program in place for decades to insure children of unemployed or underemployed parents.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/schip.htm
Click to expand...
Yeah, we have all kinds of programs for every little niche group. Children, the poor, military veterans, seniors, Indians... all with their own bureaucracies and rules.

It's an idiotic and wildly inefficient system, any way you look at it. Which is why we pay, pay, pay.
 
Does anyone else find that it is rather ironic and sadly funny that some people argue that it is much better to pay more for a health system that you can't use than for a NHS that anyone can use, and still have to pay for Private Insurance on top of that, which still might require you paying out hundreds if not thousands more in excess?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Does anyone else find that it is rather ironic and sadly funny that some people argue that it is much better to pay more for a health system that you can't use than for a NHS that anyone can use, and still have to pay for Private Insurance on top of that, which still might require you paying out hundreds if not thousands more in excess?
Click to expand...
Sure, if you make it past the DEATH PANEL!!!11!!1!!!!!!!!
 
The point is that the child was insured under SCHIP, regardless of the father's employment status.

Children have had universal insurance in the US for decades, as long as you enroll them.

Obamacare does not change this as far as I know. It's funded by Obamacare through 2015.

So, had the child been bitten in 2015, he'd have been covered exactly the same way, as far as I can tell. By the State program.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The point is that the child was insured under SCHIP, regardless of the father's employment status.

Children have had universal insurance in the US for decades, as long as you enroll them.

Obamacare does not change this as far as I know. It's funded by Obamacare through 2015.

So, had the child been bitten in 2015, he'd have been covered exactly the same way, as far as I can tell. By the State program.
Click to expand...
If the father could afford COBRA I doubt he makes so little that they qualify for SCHIP.
 
casebro said:
There is, And Daddy did. Go re-read the OP.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't see what the problem is. If you can afford the payments on a new BMW 7 series you can afford health insurance for your family. And who doesn't have that kind of cash laying around?
 
casebro said:
I guess I just don't see how UHC can survive when most of the countries of the world are going into debt. Some owe 225% of a GDP in loans, and NONE have a pay-as-you-go Govt benefits package. It's just a matter of time before every country goes bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Countries going into debt seems to have nothing to do with UHC. The USA doesn't have UHC, and is in massive debt. The Scandinavian countries, among the strongest welfare states in the world, are doing just fine.
 
Aargh!

I believe we're 50 years late providing a national health care system that covers medical, dental and prescriptions for every US citizen.

And I'm so tired of hearing we have "free health care" for children. No, we really don't. We have "programs" that pay the bills long after the fact IF the parents are able to jump through all the hoops to qualify.

But really, what does that mean in the real life? It means PARENTS are out of luck. A simple fact of life: parents who are sick or injured cannot take care of children.

But medical aid to parents is only available to the absolute poorest, who are on other forms of benefits. And then we gripe they don't want to lose those benefits by getting jobs -jobs that DO NOT provide health care.

I'm sorry. Our whole system looks like it was built by a monkey that was following plans for a Rube Goldberg toaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom