Catty: You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I haven't considered these things. I do not pay -- by choice -- for medical insurance, for reasons I think I've covered; that doesn't mean I don't pay for other insurance, which -- in your scenario -- would cover my medical expenses after I paid my deductible (a practice which I also find abhorrent -- perhaps it's acceptable while you 'build up' your account, so to speak, but after that, it's pure extortion). I pay vehicle insurance, including the options for medical coverage whether I'm driving or not, because that's a gamble that isn't worth whatever nebulous payoff there might be. I pay homeowners (well, renter's) insurance because the price of that is actually reasonable versus what's provided.
In the case of something causing me to wind up hospitalized without insurance of one sort or another covering it? You're quite right in that I would expect them to try to save my life. And yes, that costs money. I don't dispute that at all. Why do you assume I won't make arrangements to pay it off? And if it IS hundreds of thousands, and for whatever reason I'm unable to refuse treatment (even an emergency hospital stay for six days, incl. ICU visit, only ran me about 35k), then... well, I guess I'll be paying off the equivalent of a house, won't I?
The only difference is the time of payment, and I think you'll find that this is the precise thing that insurance companies make their money on -- they accept money from people in exchange for a promise to pay, immediately, the debt incurred as a result of whatever the policy covers, banking -- statistically -- on the fact that the majority of their clients don't actually make use of the insurance they purchase. In addition, they manipulate the set, always looking to profit. This is something else I find abhorrent, and is the main reason why I support higher taxes to pay for universal health care -- even though, both from a statistics standpoint and from a personal one, I won't see any direct benefit from it -- rather than mandatory payment to private insurers who are literally only there to make a buck.
If my personal medical expenses run past what I can reasonably pay off in my lifetime, then I would argue quite bluntly that I simply can't afford to live. That's reality, whether I like it or not. It's also a side-effect of a broken system, but it's the only system I have at the moment and I have to work with it -- and I do. I've paid off, without the help of any insurance, every medical bill I've ever incurred since I was 21 years old. And I'll continue to do so, without costing anyone else.
As for it being someone other than me... I already pay for those people by way of taxes -- unless you're unaware that a lot of medical funding (in the US) comes from the public as well as private insurers -- which, as of the last time I looked into this, about a year or so ago, only comprise about 35% of all hospital funding -- a significant amount, yes, but by no means a majority. Every person who doesn't have insurance is paid for by, yes, the insured, but also (and more so) by every tax-paying citizen.
Which I am. I don't begrudge my taxes at all.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
In the case of something causing me to wind up hospitalized without insurance of one sort or another covering it? You're quite right in that I would expect them to try to save my life. And yes, that costs money. I don't dispute that at all. Why do you assume I won't make arrangements to pay it off? And if it IS hundreds of thousands, and for whatever reason I'm unable to refuse treatment (even an emergency hospital stay for six days, incl. ICU visit, only ran me about 35k), then... well, I guess I'll be paying off the equivalent of a house, won't I?
The only difference is the time of payment, and I think you'll find that this is the precise thing that insurance companies make their money on -- they accept money from people in exchange for a promise to pay, immediately, the debt incurred as a result of whatever the policy covers, banking -- statistically -- on the fact that the majority of their clients don't actually make use of the insurance they purchase. In addition, they manipulate the set, always looking to profit. This is something else I find abhorrent, and is the main reason why I support higher taxes to pay for universal health care -- even though, both from a statistics standpoint and from a personal one, I won't see any direct benefit from it -- rather than mandatory payment to private insurers who are literally only there to make a buck.
If my personal medical expenses run past what I can reasonably pay off in my lifetime, then I would argue quite bluntly that I simply can't afford to live. That's reality, whether I like it or not. It's also a side-effect of a broken system, but it's the only system I have at the moment and I have to work with it -- and I do. I've paid off, without the help of any insurance, every medical bill I've ever incurred since I was 21 years old. And I'll continue to do so, without costing anyone else.
As for it being someone other than me... I already pay for those people by way of taxes -- unless you're unaware that a lot of medical funding (in the US) comes from the public as well as private insurers -- which, as of the last time I looked into this, about a year or so ago, only comprise about 35% of all hospital funding -- a significant amount, yes, but by no means a majority. Every person who doesn't have insurance is paid for by, yes, the insured, but also (and more so) by every tax-paying citizen.
Which I am. I don't begrudge my taxes at all.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs