[VBprogrammer]

I mean this in the nicest possible way; the casual way Americans talk about these things makes me wonder if they aren't suffering some form of Stockholm syndrome.

The percentage of the population who don't have anything like that kind of money in savings is huge. And that is after you already pay huge amounts for insurance.

[tomkarlo]

Medical bills are (according to some studies [0]) the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. So not only do you have to recover from a serious accident or illness, and maybe the loss of work time associated with it, you also are left with either a crippling level of debt or the total loss of your assets, plus a lien on future income.

Additionally, the less money you make, the worse coverage you probably can afford, leaving you even more exposed.

You're absolutely right that it's insane that Americans talk about this as if it's just the only way things could work.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

[JacobDotVI]

It's worse than that: "63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...

[SketchySeaBeast]

But who would keep the predatory loan economies afloat if they couldn't prey on people in their time of need?

I constantly hear economists saying people are spending outside their means, but when the price of getting sick with a throat infection is beyond their means, or will set their savings back by months or even years, is it really the people who are at fault?

[wpietri]

And I'd add that we spend circa a half-trillion per year on various forms of advertising, marketing, PR, etc. (In comparison, the US spends $0.62 trillion/year on K-12 education.) The main purpose of that is to get people to spend money, often by demand generation.

Maybe if we don't want people spending beyond their means, we shouldn't have highly paid professions entirely devoted to getting people to spend without regard to their means.

[mrrsm]

I am pretty sure we do have Stockholm syndrome to some extent. Depending on your situation you can try to min/max the health insurance available to you to fit your needs.

Those who are fortunate to have good benefits are also usually able to set aside money for medical expenses. On the opposite side of things you end up having people with poor to no insurance with medical bills of more then they can afford to ever pay.

[VBprogrammer]

> you can try to min/max the health insurance available to you to fit your needs.

How do you do that though? The video which started this discussion is a young healthy woman who suddenly discovered she had a brain tumour. It could happen to anyone.

Fair enough, if I have a large amount of savings I might try to reduce the monthly payment by increasing the amount of risk I'm taking. But aren't those the people who would be most likely to have their insurance as part of their benefits package and so aren't paying for it directly anyway?

[mrrsm]

Where I work I am presented with multiple insurance options at various out of pocket costs both up front as well as over the course of the year. This means I can break down previous years medical expenses as well as projected expenses for the upcoming year to find the plan that offers me the best coverage for the best price.

In my case we are offered a HSA plan that the employer ends up paying us a small amount by contributions into your HSA account. That is a high deductible plan though so you will pay for everything until you hit that deductible. We are also offered more traditional 80/20 and 90/10 plans which have a much higher monthly cost but spaces out the cost of things more as the deductible is much lower.

The HSA plan is very risky for the first year as my max out of pocket was more then I was legally allowed to contribute to my HSA. The second year I had enough savings put away where even if I ended up with a giant expensive issue I had enough put away for that max out of pocket number. This plays well into the scenario in the video. I have to protect myself going forward from the unforeseen medical issues. In my current situation that means making sure I have at least 1 years worth of my max out of pocket expenses saved up. Now I am covered even if unexpected things happen.

As a single adult with a good job it is much easier then if I had a family or was working a lower paying job. Even then you can do all the calculations but the risk factor goes up with the more people you have as the unknown portion grows. There is no good solution, that I know of, with our current healthcare system. I just try to play the game and do my best to stay healthy and prepare for the day when I am not.

[gonehome]

For me it’s more that I’ve accepted it’s hopeless.

Like gun control the issue has reached a stable equilibrium of political stupidity and I don’t see how it could change in the current climate.

[mikestew]

Ever been around someone with, say, cancer and experienced the casual way they might talk about procedures that would horrify you (or at least make you a bit squeamish)? No one sympathizes with their cancer, but one would do well to make peace with reality.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for my hostage-takers, but I'm unlikely to fight my way out of this one, so might as well go back to talking about out-of-pocket maximums until I can make a shiv out of this toothpick.