$550,000 medical bills

[ERD50]

Do you have any facts that support the idea that Olympic skiers face a significantly greater risk of death than the general public?

I suspect that anyone who owns a motercycle, boat, or snowmobile has just as great a risk of accidental death.

I don't have the resources to 'prove' it, but I think it's pretty clear that during the time they are training or competing in events like this, that yes, they face a much greater risk of death and/or serious injury. If you can find out what the event promoters have to pay for insurance for these events, I think that would give a pretty clear idea of the risk.

Plus, I'm pretty sure motorcycle owners pay a higher rate than car drivers, not sure about boats and snowmobiles.

There seems to be a strong desire in a lot of people to blame bad outcomes on the person receiving them. I suspect that people want to do that so that they can go through life thinking that if they make good decisions, bad things won't happen to them.

Mostly people who think they are more responsible than everyone else and who seem to think bad things never happen to good people, that any time something bad happens to someone, it's their own fault and society doesn't have a moral responsibility to lift a finger to them.

Wow, that's a pretty extreme twist and unwarranted expansion of what I've said. Do you feel better now?

Sure, 'stuff happens', but responsible people do what they can to try to protect themselves to a reasonable degree. An example I've given before - when my kid graduated and went off my MegaCorp ins coverage, and had not obtained a job with coverage yet, I didn't moan and groan about the loss, we went out and got a high deductible policy for him ($60). I know other people who did not, and from what I know, their hospital bill (when they got hurt engaging in some risky 'horseplay') got covered by 'other people's money'. And no, I can't see why that irresponsibility should be defended. But they saved $60/month, I guess I was just a sap.

After typing that, I got a bit more worked up, I'm going to re-quote a portion and respond a bit more appropriately:

and who seem to think bad things never happen to good people, that any time something bad happens to someone, it's their own fault and society doesn't have a moral responsibility to lift a finger to them.

That is downright unfair, and just plain wrong, and it is an insult. I am offended by this characterization. And never say never, or always (anytime).

I have two friends that are fighting cancer right now. These are super-good people ( I wish I could claim to be 1/10 as good as they are), who have paid close attention to their health, they are some of the most fit people I know. Yet, through no fault of their own, they have cancer, and one has even has a recurrence. One is covered by our MegaCorp ins, and you are wrong if you think that I wouldn't want our insurance to do the best they can for them, even if it meant they had to raise the average rate for the group.

When you characterize others as acting superior, you risk coming across as acting superior yourself.

Regarding some other comments, I'll admit it gets complex when we try to define just what is and isn't risky behavior and how would we assign costs to this. But I think the general concept applies - people should take responsibility for their actions. Is that really controversial?

-ERD50

 

[Alan]

Do nations with government health care have any reciprocity agreements when their citizens travel? It would seem possible.

I don't think so. From personal experiences:

I had an aunt from Australia visiting England a few years ago and we happened to be on vactaion at the time so got to visit with her. She told us that she had got a bad case of flu the week before and had to go to the doctors. She to pay ~$125 for the visit and prescription as she didn't have travel health insurance.

In 2006 I was in England on business and a colleague from Spain got sick one evening and he had run out of his pills for that condition. He did carry an EU medical card, that he paid extra for, and it covered him in all EU countries. I took him to an out of hours clinic at 7pm, he saw a doctor and got prescription meds at no cost. We were back at the hotel to join the rest of our colleagues for dinner by 8.

 

[FIREd]

France does have a reciprocity agreement with a number of European and non-European countries (including the US).

 

[Alan]

France does have a reciprocity agreement with a number of European and non-European countries (including the US).

That's pretty generous considering the cost disparity.

A few years back I read an article in a UK newspaper comparing the costs of common procedures across EU countries and they were all within a range of about 20%. They also had the USA listed to show the extreme, as the USA was at least twice as expensive.

 

[Bikerdude]

Do you have any facts that support the idea that Olympic skiers face a significantly greater risk of death than the general public?

I suspect that anyone who owns a motercycle, boat, or snowmobile has just as great a risk of accidental death.

There seems to be a strong desire in a lot of people to blame bad outcomes on the person receiving them. I suspect that people want to do that so that they can go through life thinking that if they make good decisions, bad things won't happen to them.

Just so we are clear on what we are talking about here. The sport she was involved in is "XGame" (X for extreme) superpipe skiing in which the participant ski's down into a half-pipe made of snow and ice with (almost vertical) 22 ft walls. The score is combined for form, height and how many twists and turns can be completed before they must ski down the side of the pipe. Many times the skier is upside down 32ft in the air and must time the descent precisely. This XGame sport using skis has just been added to the Olympic games. It has been a snowboard Olympic game for over 10 years.

 

[FIREd]

That's pretty generous considering the cost disparity.

A few years back I read an article in a UK newspaper comparing the costs of common procedures across EU countries and they were all within a range of about 20%. They also had the USA listed to show the extreme, as the USA was at least twice as expensive.

After researching the subject some more, there are restrictions on the amount of coverage (full reciprocity applies only in specific situations). In the US, health care services are covered up to what similar services would cost in France. So, they do encourage people to contract additional coverage when traveling to countries with expensive health care services, like the US.

 

[obgyn65]

I am pleased to read this, ERD50. This is what I want too, but at a state or national level, not at a business / Megacorp level. Some of us will have to pay more to help out those who fall in the cracks for whatever reason. Maybe our respective views on this topic are not that far apart after all...

One is covered by our MegaCorp ins, and you are wrong if you think that I wouldn't want our insurance to do the best they can for them, even if it meant they had to raise the average rate for the group.

 

[donheff]

Sure, 'stuff happens', but responsible people do what they can to try to protect themselves to a reasonable degree. An example I've given before - when my kid graduated and went off my MegaCorp ins coverage, and had not obtained a job with coverage yet, I didn't moan and groan about the loss, we went out and got a high deductible policy for him ($60). I know other people who did not, and from what I know, their hospital bill (when they got hurt engaging in some risky 'horseplay') got covered by 'other people's money'.

-ERD50

I am beating a dead horse a bit but every time I hear these self sufficiency arguments I have to raise the health insurance issues. When DD went off my family policy (came back on later after HC reform) she was deemed uninsurable by BC/BS - the very company that had been covering her under my policy. Getting her decent coverage was a major worry. She eventually got coverage under a law in the socialist republic of DC that pools at risk individuals but there was a coverage gap (required IIRC) that could have proved disastrous. My nephew got cancer during a similar brief gap in the months after college. I did moan and groan about the problems we faced by the way. Our health care system warrants moaning and groaning.

Also, you quickly popped in about the need for skiers to take care of themselves but if, as other posters mentioned, it would be reasonable to expect event sponsors to have insurance then there is a bit of blaming the victim going on. How many among us is hyper vigilant about stuff like this? Speaking of which, I have traveled overseas numerous times blithely assured that I have medical insurance. I never looked to see if they actually covered overseas and will now confirm it before my upcoming trip to Africa.

Edit: Just verified that I am covered overseas. Thanks for nudging me to check ERD. Some of those libertarian traits are valuable.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

I have quite a few Canadian golf buddies (smowbirds). They pay a lot extra into their Canadian health fund if they are out of country for an extended period of time. One told me this year it cost him $5000 extra to come down here for six months this winter. Said it might be his last because next year he will reach another age plateau and it jumps to $8000. About four years ago he had a heart attack just after getting down here and had a hell of a time working out required care here vs Canada. Canada wanted him to fly back for angioplasty and stents and the cardiologist here wouldn't let him travel. The US won that battle but after full recovery, they wouldn't let him leave Canada until this year. I guess everyone in Canada pays that insurance premium if you are out of the country for six months or more.

 

[Hamlet]

I think what is controversial is the attitude that since someone chose a risky career, we shouldn't have sympathy for them when they get hurt.

By the logic of your original post, I would expect people to shrug off the deaths of soldiers, police, and firemen (or mine workers, alaskan fishermen, overnight store clerks, etc)

Those people have willingly chosen risky occupations.

"Why should anyone be surprised when they get hurt?"

You heard about the tragic death of an incredible young athelete, and the first thing you apparently think about is making sure that no one else gets stuck with her medical bills.

Regarding some other comments, I'll admit it gets complex when we try to define just what is and isn't risky behavior and how would we assign costs to this. But I think the general concept applies - people should take responsibility for their actions. Is that really controversial?

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

Wow, that's a pretty extreme twist and unwarranted expansion of what I've said. Do you feel better now?

Of what you said? Funny, I don't recall posting this as a reply to you or naming you as someone with this attitude. Hence, your defensiveness about it is a little surprising to me.

I am seeing, though, a lot more backlash against people who need help than I used to before the market meltdown created a bailout mentality. It seems to have desensitized a lot of good people into acting as though they never want to lend a helping hand any more, as if they could never possibly be victimized by their own decisions (or indecisions) or even by dumb luck they couldn't control. It not only created backlash against helping entities enduring bad times but also helped fuel "compassion fatigue."

 

[Chuckanut]

$60,000 a day for medical care!!! I think it is time we question what we are paying for , who gets it, and why it is so expensive.

 

[Grainiac]

I have quite a few Canadian golf buddies (smowbirds). They pay a lot extra into their Canadian health fund if they are out of country for an extended period of time. One told me this year it cost him $5000 extra to come down here for six months this winter. Said it might be his last because next year he will reach another age plateau and it jumps to $8000.

Would it not be a better option for him to simply get a 6 month travel insurance with high medical coverage, or is that kind of option not available for Canadians? In early 90's I was a European exchange scientist staying in the USA with J-1 visa. I was able to get up to 365 day travel insurance with unlimited medical coverage for about $100. Pre-existing conditions did not matter as long as there were no acute episodes within the last 30 days prior to departure. I believe something similar is still available for Europeans.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

Would it not be a better option for him to simply get a 6 month travel insurance with high medical coverage, or is that kind of option not available for Canadians? In early 90's I was a European exchange scientist staying in the USA with J-1 visa. I was able to get up to 365 day travel insurance with unlimited medical coverage for about $100. Pre-existing conditions did not matter as long as there were no acute episodes within the last 30 days prior to departure. I believe something similar is still available for Europeans.

This is exactly what he has. It's a premium to his insurance coverage for being out of the country for six months. In other words, "if you want to travel and be gone six months, you are taking a risk that could put you in peril of needing hospital care outside Canada and it will cost you this much". That's the way I understand it.

 

[ERD50]

I think what is controversial is the attitude that since someone chose a risky career, we shouldn't have sympathy for them when they get hurt.
....

You heard about the tragic death of an incredible young athelete, and the first thing you apparently think about is making sure that no one else gets stuck with her medical bills.

No, the first thing I asked the OP, was what he meant by 'eye opening' (and I would still appreciate an answer from him - it's practically a 'blind link' as the comment didn't really tell us what to expect or look for). There must be at least a dozen different angles on this story, I was not sure what he was getting at. And the smiley seemed odd - is there something funny here

The post before mine started talking about the medical bill, so I just followed that theme (one of many).

By the logic of your original post, I would expect people to shrug off the deaths of soldiers, police, and firemen (or mine workers, alaskan fishermen, overnight store clerks, etc)

Those people have willingly chosen risky occupations.

"Why should anyone be surprised when they get hurt?"

I don't know what you mean by 'shrug off' a death. Any death is tragic. But yes, I have a little different gut feeling when someone dies pursuing an activity that they enjoy, when they know full well it is a very dangerous thing to do (and it is probably the danger that is part of the attraction). It's still tragic, it's sad, but it is different from hearing that a straight A student who just graduated was killed by a drunk driver when they were doing nothing wrong. If it's wrong for me to feel that way, I'm sorry, I'll just have to chalk it up to being human.

BTW, fire fighters face a lower risk than:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2010hb.pdf

First-line supervisors/managers of retail sales workers 3.4

Fire fighters 3.2

But to the degree that people choose risky occupations, they should take steps to prepare for that risk. Certainly a commercial fisherman (a very dangerous occupation) who is the main source of income for a family should have life insurance, no?

Of what you said? Funny, I don't recall posting this as a reply to you or naming you as someone with this attitude. Hence, your defensiveness about it is a little surprising to me.

Well, the other post I quoted said much the same thing, and it was directed at me. And you responded to another poster who was saying some of the same things I was, so yes, I did think your comments included me as 'people who think they are more responsible than everyone else'. I didn't think that was a leap, but I still feel the characterization is wrong, even if it was directed at 'some people', rather than me specifically.


RE: my willingness to pay for insurance to help assure others get good coverage:

I am pleased to read this, ERD50. This is what I want too, but at a state or national level, not at a business / Megacorp level. Some of us will have to pay more to help out those who fall in the cracks for whatever reason. Maybe our respective views on this topic are not that far apart after all...

Well, I don't want to re-hash the whole health care debate, that's been done several times earlier on this forum. But I don't know what would make you think my views were any different from what I stated in that response. It's tough to say more w/o opening up the whole HC debate, but I'll just say that I do think everyone should be covered, and everyone should be expected to pay for the coverage (and if they truly cannot pay, a 'safety net' provides for them). And that is totally consistent with my 'responsibility' comments - everyone (who can) is taking responsibility for themselves, and pooling the risk.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

How sad that Sarah Burke died in the tragic accident at only 29 yo. In pics around the web, she looked so happy, friendly and vibrant.

After reading many positive comments regarding the Canadian Health Care System on this forum, I was surprised to read that this same system coldly ignored the needs of one of their own, Sarah Burke. What were they thinking? Why would they not provide her the care she needed and would have received had the accident occured on their side of the border?

Since Sarah was a member of their system and since she did not have the resources to pay for the care herself, how could the Canadians ignore her and watch this grow into an ugly situation? Was the strategy to punish her for not taking out the appropriate extra insurance from Canada for coverage outside the country?

Thanks to all the generous folks who eventually picked up the tab.

Shame on Canadians for abandoning one of their own. This was no time to deny coverage on the technicality that she was not on Canadian soil.

Edit: This article seems to be more factual and informative than the Huffington Post article provided by OP. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ced-200k-medical-bills.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The bill was about $200k, not $550k. Her husband Rory was being chased for payment. Donors more than covered all of the bill with quite a bit left over. Sarah did have supplemental performance insurance but those folks weenied out through a clause that said it only covered sanctioned events. Sarah was hurt while practicing.

Although the facts take some of the sensationalism out of the whole story, it still leaves the Canadian system looking a bit cold hearted in how they treated Sarah and her family.

The "eye opener" for me was discovering how bad/inaccurate the Huffington Post article was. And that the Canadian gov't, Sarah's insurer, is paying so little of the bill for her care.

 

[Chuckanut]

I have yet to meet a Canadian or a Brit who would trade their heath care system for the US system. They may be out there, but I have not met one yet.

 

[youbet]

I have yet to meet a Canadian or a Brit who would trade their heath care system for the US system. They may be out there, but I have not met one yet.

Perhaps you need to ask Sarah's husband, Rory, how he feels about the non-paying (in this case) Canadian system. But, generally, I agree that comments about the Canadian system are usually positive. Why do you think the Canadians acted so horribly wrong in this particular situation? Have you seen the pics of Sarah on the web? She seems like a happy, friendly, young person. Why would the Canadian authorities and their system single her out to not cover? I don't get it. As you say, Canadians seem to really like their system. Certainly the Canadian public would not approve of this treatment of one of their own.

Note that the article I posted is a UK article.

Remember, we're not talking about the USA health insurance system here. Sarah is a Canadian who held both Canadian coverage (that amazingly did nothing for her - unbelievable) and private coverage that was only for sanctioned events.

 

[Chuckanut]

I think it is best to let any Canadians comment on their system. They know it best.

 

[youbet]

I think it is best to let any Canadians comment on their system. They know it best.

I suppose. But do you agree with the Canadians not helping their fellow citizen Sarah Burke? No need to comment on their whole system. Canadians comment on aspects of the USA health care system (whatever that is.......) freely and I expect would welcome our opinions on this specific case.

The original post opening the thread certainly brought up an interesting issue. With so many millions of non-citizens inside our borders at any given moment, does any future national health care plan we establish need to provide coverage for them while they are here? Should visitors, such as Sarah, be covered gratis and automatically?

The example of Sarah Burke clearly indicates that the Canadian system washed their hands of responsibility. I don't think they should have. I wonder how many other countries with injuried or ill citizens visiting the USA would have handled it that way. And I wonder how we should handle the issue of uninsured visitors needing expensive and perhaps scarce care in the future.

Perhaps this isn't the angle OP had in mind when he started the thread, but that's what it is. It's a big, highly populated world out there.

 

[ERD50]

How sad that Sarah Burke died in the tragic accident at only 29 yo. In pics around the web, she looked so happy, friendly and vibrant.

After reading many positive comments regarding the Canadian Health Care System on this forum, I was surprised to read that this same system coldly ingnord the needs of one of their own, Sarah Burke. What were they thinking? Why would they not provide her the care she needed and would have received had the accident occured on their side of the border?

And this is one of the things that I thought the OP might be referring to as an 'eye opener'. So many ways to interpret that line.

The "eye opener" for me was discovering how bad/inaccurate the Huffington Post article was.

I have yet to meet a Canadian or a Brit who would trade their heath care system for the US system. They may be out there, but I have not met one yet.

I think it is best to let any Canadians comment on their system. They know it best.

For a minute, I thought your location 'Redmond' referred to Redmond, OT.

redmond, ontario, canada - Google Maps

-ERD50

 

[Hamlet]

It's human and understandable.

Does it really matter though if the student hit by the drunk driver was an straight A student? Would it be less tragic if they were struggling to get accepted to a bad community college?

I don't know what you mean by 'shrug off' a death. Any death is tragic. But yes, I have a little different gut feeling when someone dies pursuing an activity that they enjoy, when they know full well it is a very dangerous thing to do (and it is probably the danger that is part of the attraction). It's still tragic, it's sad, but it is different from hearing that a straight A student who just graduated was killed by a drunk driver when they were doing nothing wrong. If it's wrong for me to feel that way, I'm sorry, I'll just have to chalk it up to being human.
-ERD50

 

[growing_older]

A system in which anyone visiting a country is automatically covered for all medical expenses for free is obviously unworkable and would be subject to unmanageable adverse selection, among other issues. But a system which covers all citizens in a national healthcare system could have provisions to cover those same individuals while traveling, perhaps with some restrictions. I'm very surprised that the "restrictions" seem to amount to zero coverage while traveling and wonder why these systems are set up that way.

 

[Brat]

Many American health insurance policies to not cover accidents or illnesses outside the US.

IMHO she (and her husband) should have purchased insurance for their activities outside of CN. Now we are paying for her unreimbursed care.

 

[Grainiac]

France does have a reciprocity agreement with a number of European and non-European countries (including the US).

That's pretty generous considering the cost disparity.

+1

I bet very few countries in the world have that kind of reciprocity agreement with the USA. I understand most EU countries only have it with the other EU countries. How does it work with the US emergency healthcare providers? French citizen just tell the ER personnel to send the bill to the French Embassy? No coverage limit? I have heard about intensive care bills of over $1M after a bad car accident.

I always advice my European relatives who come to visit in the USA get a travellers insurance with unlimited medical and repatriation flight coverages.