[IG_Semmelweiss]

This is why insurance plans have out of pocket maximums. To prevent this exact issue.

We can say whether those maximums are still too high (some really are), but the mechanism is there.

The real issue is that most people don't have a rainy day fund to deal with such emergencies. And that they are too expensive anyway.

There are 2 concepts you should always keep in mind.

1. Always avoid the hospital unless you are literally dying. Surgery centers are owned by doctors who will negotiate a fixed fee, because there's someone to negotiate with (unlike Hospitals which run on the CYA principle). Also, most doctors can do procedures in office, if they have the right one.

2. Medical debt will never lead to collections. Hospitals may sue you, depending on the state, but that carriers reputational risk. A good PR push and a decent lawyer to threaten discovery will be enough to fend off even the most aggressive hospitals - this allow you to setle at a very reasonable price vs what insurance would normally pay.

[diob]

That analysis is flawed because it misses the systemic nature of the risk. The Out-of-Pocket Max is an annual liability, not a one-time fix. A single serious illness, like cancer, spans multiple plan years. A $9,200 OOPM hitting three years in a row, on top of $15k-$18k in annual premiums, is the bankruptcy. This also assumes 100% in-network care, which is a fantasy in a real emergency when you don't get to pick the ambulance or the anesthesiologist. This isn't a "rainy day fund" problem. This is a system that requires a $50k-$100k emergency fund just to handle a single medical event, all while assuming you're still healthy enough to keep the job that provides the plan.

"Always avoid the hospital" isn't a choice either. You don't "negotiate" with a surgery center for a heart attack, a stroke, or a major car accident, which are some of the common events that cause this. And the claim that "medical debt will never lead to collections" is factually incorrect.

It is the number one cause of collections in the United States. The idea that every citizen can just "hire a decent lawyer" or "run a good PR push" to settle debt isn't a functional or scalable mechanism, nor is it reality.

[bilekas]

> Hospitals may sue you, depending on the state, but that carriers reputational risk

I'm sorry but if I need a hospital, my first thought isnt, "well how is their reputation".

I don't understand why people defend the insurance system in the US when you're already paying taxes. If it's not the responsibility of the government who you pay to take care of their people in an emergency then what are taxes for. It's like people just accept it because that's how it's always been.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

What we have is not insurance.

What we have is all-you-can-eat ferrari care

Insurance is what i have when i drive my car , or get water damage insurance for my house.

The monster we have today is not insurance. Instead, it is the frankenstein born out of the womb of bureaucrats and politicians influenced by money. Decades of tinkering politicians without a clue, messing around with the relationship between the doctor and patient, responding to voting patterns of the electorate, led us to today.

Unless you blow it up, (and it will blow up, just like it happened in sweden) there's no solution, except paying more for ferrari all-you-can eat.

[jalapenos]

Your country is twisted dude