It's terrible that these things happen at all, and we CERTAINLY need to improve the US healthcare system, but exaggerations like "the only benefit of insurance in the US is access to preventative care" doesn't help. If people were regularly getting fucked like that the system wouldn't have the entrenched support it does from the "but I want to keep my insurance" camp, and so speaking in generalities like that just makes you appear uninformed to the millions who regularly see doctors, get treatment, have surgery, etc, without these problems.

It also cheapens the inequality problem: the gap isn't just "has access to preventive care" vs "doesn't have that access." The gap is "has hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, of bills turn into nothing" vs "bankrupt if they seek treatment for any serious problem."

I'm sorry, but I just can't see how this is true. Do you only go to the doctor for a yearly checkup, or something?

I've had "good" coverage (paid for by big employers with cushy all inclusive packages), and I've also had the cheapest option on CA’s exchange, and the only difference was whether I had to pay the receptionist $25 or $150.

The "we won't cover this" and the "surprise, this costs 50x what you were told!" billing nightmare comes six months later. This has happened with every insurer I've ever had.

In my experience it does help to have an HMO. My mom uses Kaiser. So there's none of this in- vs out-of-network. One billing system, one insurance, etc. She has nothing but positive things to say about them. My dad had a similar experience towards the end of his life. He loved 'em. And nobody was left destitute as the result of his medical care.

Lets look at it this way: If that was the true price, what percentage of the US population do you think has the funds to actually pay $420k/year in for medication?

> what percentage of the US population do you think has the funds to actually pay $420k/year in for medication?

Zero, plus or minus. That's why the manufacturers basically give it away to people who can't afford it. Because they can, and it helps them somewhat mitigate the bad PR.

I don’t see how that follows.

The “I’ve got mine” camp doesn’t care that it happens to those other people, and also doesn’t understand that it could happen to them in their old age (or simply after bad luck) because they’ve only made short visits into the system.

Of my different health insurance policies, the longest duration in an ICU that was covered by any of those insurance policies was 60 days. My father was "lucky" in that he was on a subsidized Obamacare policy that "only" charged $350 per month (which was cheaper than my employer's policy) but was FAR superior to any of my employers' health insurance in every aspect.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but it sounds like you're making the claim that people in the US don't regularly end up with massive surprise medical bills? This entire conversation is about action the government is taking because it happens so often.

> "has hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, of bills turn into nothing"

That's not really how that works. It's not like your insurance company is actually paying "millions of dollars", they're paying some level of reasonable negotiated rate. If they actually had to pay "millions of dollars", that's when they claim something is not covered and you get stuck with a bill anyways.

Edit: First quote was just wrong from a bad copy/paste

Wouldn't it be better if you went to the hospital, gave them your insurance information, and that's the last you ever were involved with anything regarding payment? Isn't that one of the reasons we have insurance?

What insurance do you have where the cost of the annual premium is less than what the out of pocket costs would be for annual checkups for the covered individuals?

I have the cheapest insurance I can get. Yes, it pays for basic preventative care (basically a checkup per person per year), and it also costs more than my mortgage.