892
Couple left with $200k bill after baby born in US (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 6 months ago* by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
285 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A couple were told they faced a $200,000 (£146,500) medical bill when their baby was born prematurely in the US, despite them having travel insurance which covered her pregnancy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 6 months ago (10 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent