881
Couple left with $200k bill after baby born in US
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
881 points (99.0% liked)
Not The Onion
20539 readers
1692 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ah yes, the United States -- Don't get sick or you will have to fight tooth and nail to get your insurance company to pay for necessary medical care. This is a story heard over and over again stateside. If the U.S. was truly the best place in the world to live, this would simply not happen. As a person who has worked in healthcare in the U.S. for over 15 years, I feel this in my bones. I am glad you could get legal help and have the right outcome based on what you paid for. I would love nothing more than to see everyone who comes to the U.S. receive medical care appropriately -- Nobody asks to get sick :(
i'm glad the medical side tries to stay focused on patient care. i've a friend in Mexico where they check ability to pay before any treatment begins. she was bleeding out and they waited until after her card was verified before doing anything. lower costs, maybe. One thing that being married to an RN has taught me, the billing department sends insanely inflated bills which are step 1 in their insurance negotiation. I got a bill for over $600,000, I laughed while still in the hospital bed. bill got negotiated down to $150,000. Even if there is a ginormous bill, you can postpone threatened collections by sending them anything, like $10/month. it will reset their billing escalation cycle. debts more than 7 years old will get written off. if all else fails, bankruptcy isn't all that bad. shuffle assets to trusted family. the amount of money they waste on greedy negotiations far eclipses any actual cost for treatment. don't stress over the bills. stress kills. let some fat lawyer worry about not getting a new car this year.
I dunno - my ex burned all the skin off his hand once, the first question at the emergency room was "how are you paying?" and we waited there 5 hours before they saw him, during which time it got so much worse he ended up needing more treatment & therapy. No we didn't have insurance or money back then. They eventually arranged temporary Medicaid for him as he couldn't work with the hand so burned. Which left us without his income (I had just given birth too) so without much food.
Anyway - this was in the 1990s but I am absolutely sure we had to wait because we could not pay, even though it was an obvious emergency.
some are worse than others. I've noticed going to a prompt care is much faster than going to 'emergency room'. depends a lot on location and how busy they are that day. i haven't been seen w/o insurance since 70s when i broke my hand in a fight. doubt they ever got paid for that cast.
Not germane. Zurich Insurance Group is not a USian medical insurance company.
Just a stark reminder that all insurance, no matter where you get it from and what country it originates in, is 100% a scam.
That's just blatantly false. I'm all for hating companies that gouge people to make money, but insurance isn't inherently a scam. Insurance, when implemented properly, is paying a low regular premium to offset a risk you can't afford should it hit. I've insured my house against burning down, because I can afford to pay a small amount once a month while a fire (while unlikely) would bankrupt me. Most likely, I'll lose money in the long run by paying for that insurance, but that's not the point. The point is that I can afford to lose money over a 30-50 year period, but I cannot afford to lose my house at any single point during the next 30-50 years.
It’s a nice ideal. Insurance can in theory help smooth out whatever life throws at you. But in the modern world, their incentives are to not
The US health care industry is a scam
Yeah give me that line again after your house actually has burned down and you have to fight tooth and nail to get any money from the insurance company that you've been paying to for the last X number of years.
You are aware that the whole basis for my original comment (and follow-up) was that insurance isn't inherently a scam, right? Any transaction can be turned into a scam if you refuse to hold up your end of the deal, but that doesn't make the concept of transactions a scam in itself.
My impression is that US insurance companies are particularly bad about not paying up, and thereby scamming people. Luckily, I don't live in the US, and don't have any historical precedent that gives me reason to doubt my insurance company would pay up. The problem with insurance (and a lot of other things) in the US is a system that heavily incentivises squeezing consumers at every turn. The problem is not that insurance is an inherently a scam.
i'll bet you and all your neighbors 100/mo, your house won't burn down this month. send payments on time or else. Meanwhile, i lend you your money to pay for your mortgage with interest. have some more Kool-Aid.
Why would I take that when I already have a running bet with my insurance company where I only pay ≈ 20 USD / month?
The whole point here is that I can afford 20 USD/month indefinitely. However, having my house burn down at any point would be absolutely detrimental to my personal economy, to the point of bankrupting me and likely preventing me from being able to afford a new house in the foreseeable future. I'm well aware that in purely economic terms I'm taking a losing bet. The point is that the consequences should the bet strike home are so large that I can't afford not to take it.
Of course, you could argue that I would be better off saving that money and being "my own insurance". You would be right, except for the fact that the house burning down is just as likely tomorrow as in 20 years. If I had enough cash to insure myself, I obviously wouldn't need to take this losing bet, but I don't.
big insurers have millions of your neighbors paying 20/month. all i know is, 'the house always wins'. they are swimming in cash. my dad used to sell car insurance. when cards became mandatory, he had an influx of 'card buyers'. pay one month and get a card. stop paying. because they bet the odds of getting fined for no card were a lot better than odds of getting in a wreck. house wins, sells you 'uninsured motorist' coverage. people gamble on many things. insurance is good when you win. they lose when you win so deny, depose ... I don't know the answer. just try to hedge bets and look for ways to break even for all us non-greedy shmoes. i don't like most insurance co.'s greed. have insurance as required and savings also. i'd never pay for extended warranty on something under $10k. that's some easy bets for them.
Yes, it's a for profit business that makes it's profit off of trying to have the most accurate odds they can. They charge you slightly more than they expect to lose on you (the house edge) and then they're betting on every roll of the dice. That's exactly how casinos earn money (though casinos try to compete on experience and payout, while insurance competes on price and payout).
The difference is that the casino is attempting to take advantage of your greed and wants you to stay there and bet everything you have. Meanwhile the insurer is selling relief from fear of financial ruin and is asking you to make scheduled bets that you want to lose every month. American health insurance has massive issues and should be replaced with something akin to the NHS before it was defunded, but nobody is losing their shirt buying homeowners insurance unless the area they live in is now being pummeled by the climate crisis like southern California or the gulf of Mexico.
Would government run insurance be better? Yeah probably. But in the era before modern insurance a major part of the draw of fraternal organizations was that they served that role.
I agree that the house is winning here (as always) and I also hate companies that squeeze us regular people for cash at every opportunity as much as the next person.
My point is that I don't really see buying e.g. house insurance as a gamble as much as I see it as paying a monthly fee for the peace of mind it gives me to know that I won't be financially ruined by a house fire or a burglary. It's not about making money in the long term for me, it's about mitigating the consequences of highly unlikely but absolutely devastating events.
have insurance with allstate because it's cheaper rate. hail damaged the entire neighborhood, 20 houses on two separate days. every other house on my street got 2 new roofs a month before allstate quit dragging their feet and released funds to do mine once. i paid my nephew extra to make it a metal roof and made allstate give me a discount. pay for itself and last long after i'm dead. peace of mind until you have to jump through hoops to make them do what you paid for.
I am well aware of that. This couple's experience was in parallel to what occurs all the time with people who have insurance in the U.S.
I don't think anyone was sick here.
So, your perspective is that pregnant people who have life-threatening medical conditions arising from their pregnancy through no fault of their own should have to pay out-of-pocket? Additionally, in it sounds like you feel that premature births due to life-threatening medical issues that the mother is suffering from and subsequent aftercare for the mother and premature infant should also be paid for out of pocket?
Use condoms.