Also as an American, my medical record mostly just consists of how many days since the last time I went to the doctor. For those without insurance, less is more when it comes to number of visits.
Yes, and par would be like needing a doctor about once every three months. Keep it less frequent than that, and you're winning the game.
A friend of mine without insurance skateboards at a skate park. And I'm like "dude, that's pretty risky for not having insurance."
He explained the math to me, as long as he doesn't break a bone or need stitches more than once every few months, then not paying for insurance saves him money even if he has to pay $300-500 out of pocket at a walk-in clinic.
For young people in America, it seems that the only time that insurance isn't a net negative is when: 1) you have a chronic illness that requires regular treatments, 2) you have been diagnosed with cancer, and 3) pregnancy.
> For young people in America, it seems that the only time that insurance isn't a net negative
Insurance inherently is on average a net negative, but it constrains the risk that your needed costs unexpectedly are significantly above average, which can be catastrophic otherwise, especially in a system where care beyond immediate stabilization is gated by ability to pay. so that not having resources doesn't just mean a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy but potential denial of care.
Insurance is a net negative for anybody paying for regular, routine care. Insurance and the massive rats nest of middle men and perverse incentives it creates is why a physical, stitches and every other boring service provided thousands of times per day costs hundreds of dollars.
If you have insurance, the opposite is the case.