That being said, from a global perspective, “bankruptcy” is not a good measure of economic burden. There are worse debt outcomes than bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is not some sort of a financial death sentence. In fact you’ll even be able to get access to credit almost immediately, because the default risk just after bankruptcy is extremely low due to the fact that you can’t declare bankruptcy for another 2-3 years.
Yes, your credit score is trashed for the next 6-7 years, but it’s also trashed with an insufferable amount of medical debt.
I would be much more upset about a 6 figure medical bill if I had 6 figures in liquid assets than I would be if I owned nothing besides some home equity.
If I have 6 figures of liquid assets, I’m wiped out, but if I own nothing, I declare bankruptcy and have a clean slate.
Not only do you get to keep your home, but the majority of people who file Chapter 7 keep everything.
That’s not to say we don’t have issues with medical costs… I’m just speaking generally about using bankruptcy rates as an indicator.
The TL;DR is that the law allows you to “exempt” certain assets, mostly, basic necessities that people need to live a basic productive life. The point of bankruptcy is to make people pay what they can reasonably afford, not to make them pay every penny possible. The types of assets that chapter 7 does take away are things that poor people often don’t have anyway.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-chapter-7-no...
I think TV and movies have led people to believe that people “lose everything” when they file bankruptcy and end up on the streets. That’s just not reality, at least in the US.
So now my taxes paid for the garbage public healthcare system that I didn’t want, and then I had to pay for the private insurance.
Unfortunately most people aren’t that fortunate to be able to easily justify spending extra £300 a month on health insurance so they just cope with the NHS.
It’d be NHS if the non-urgent treatment would be immediately available from them (which is basically never), otherwise I’d be sent to a private hospital.
> Or maybe the existence of NHS puts healthcare costs much less than that in the US.
This probably helps, but the US healthcare costs are just fucked for no good reason. I like to look at South Korea as an example of reasonable costs in a healthcare system that’s 100% private (the government just picks up the tab afterwards).
Amen to that.
> I like to look at South Korea as an example of reasonable costs in a healthcare system that’s 100% private (the government just picks up the tab afterwards).
From Britain you don't have to look that far abroad for this: Germany would suffice, AIUI, or maybe even just across the Channel to France. (But, hey, congrats on leaving the club of civilised nations.)
Something a little similar happens in the US: as a visitor you can get travel insurance including private medical care for much less than regular private insurance, because the insurance company isn't on the hook for long-term problems, just for a medevac back to your home country.
Tones of people fly to India to get major surgery done , medical tourism is a booming industry there.
For a British resident it wouldn't be even a factor on the top of the mind as they would be used to NHS covering everything and most people would expect travel insurance to cover this - it probably would have
[1] even in 1995
And sure, fly another 1-2 hr to get to the final destination, but they flew 8+ hours.
It kinda makes no sense.
It needs to be 70%.
https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection...
I've never quite understood that. But there has been a lot I don't understand these past few years.
If all you have to disinfect your ad hoc instruments is brandy, then use it: way better than nothing.
Infection is not an automatic outcome. My grandma was an obstetric nurse, she witnessed surgeons in 1950s Southern Italy performing operations with rusty knives; and most patients would still be ok.
Sometimes we forget that the human race survived for thousands of years without the niceties of modern medicine. It's good to minimise risk, but in the end risk does not mean certainty of bad outcomes.
An in-flight surgery that stabilizes the patient indefinitely is more successful IMO than one with all the best tooling that gets the patient killed.
The attempt to conceal comment seems to be doctor covering his errors after an inadequate physical exam before take off.
Someone trying to conceal wouldn't complain of chest problems before take off. Most airlines would remove you from the plane before even doing an exam, and won't depend on eye doctors potentially flying to do it.