Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmSmith
This is a misconception. I have an employee who, while he was working for another company, accumulated a rather sizable emergency room hospital bill. He didn't have insurance and he didn't pay the bill. After he came back to work for us, I was court ordered to garnish his wages according to a fairly ruthless formula. They took about 1/3 of his take-home pay, which was not a great deal to start with. He really got hammered. But eventually, he was able to pay it off. They only way he could have avoided it would have been to skip from job to job in order to stay ahead of the court. Some people do that, but it is not where the bulk of our money is going.
One could argue that the whole idea of insurance is about basically the same phenomenon--whether you have it or not. Who costs us, the people who have it more: a) the person with no insurance who skips out on a lanced boil bill of $250; or b) the person who has paid say $50,000 into a health insurance plan and then has a major health crisis that runs $500,000? It is all relative. The only thing that we do know is that costs are out of control, and they are out of control in a specific way that competition alone cannot remedy.
|
I'm not buying it. The guy who doesn't have insurance and has the $500,000 med bill is worse than the guy who pays $50,000 and then has the $500,000 med bill. Basic math.
Either pay for the insurance or suffer on your own. That's the only fair way to do it.