I find that to be a bit of odd statement; most "new" technologies are expensive at first, until they're later refined/optimized/begin to benefit from economies of scale.
It doesn't sound reasonable -to me- to say "might as well not do any of it, because I probably won't be able to take immediate advantage".
> I find that to be a bit of odd statement; most "new" technologies are expensive at first, until they're later refined/optimized/begin to benefit from economies of scale.
It's still going to be prohibitively expensive. Because medical-everything is expensive when you pay 100% out of pocket, even after all the down-the-road factors have taken effect.
$3k for this scope, $11k for that outpatient procedure, $80k for an inpatient procedure - it adds up. Especially when the first thing on the list cleans you out.
A nice example of the kind of HN response comment that completely flies past being in any way useful, thoughtful or realistic.
As the other response here mentions, even if one has the financial means to just uproot and "move to another country with public healthcare", there's a whole bureaucracy around doing such a thing that makes it hard in the best of circumstances and absolutely grueling if you need medical support for anything resembling a serious and pressing problem.
Even if you're from a country with universal healthcare, but live overseas long enough to be a non-resident of your home country, going back can involve obligatory wait times for rejoining the system. In Canada, for example, i've known this wait time to be something like three months. Imagine managing that while sick and unable to pay for pricey medical assistance.
No. This was meant as a comment to mention that it does not need to be this way. Maybe voting can help.
Also, it's actual possibility. I have moved countries, and I'm not rich. If I had a serious condition I'd move off the USA in a minute. Either Europe or South America. There are no such wait times in some countries. The thing is "pricey" and "medical assistance" don't need to go together. US population thinks so, are used to it. It's crazy. The dollar amounts sent back and forth between insurance and providers are bonkers. Absolutely inflated. Same as medical career cost.
Is this a realistic option? Say you're an American and go to Canada or the UK (I don't know where else has universal healthcare off the top of my head, maybe nordic countries). Can you get treatment without being a citizen or owning land, do they care if it's a prior condition? I wonder how long and difficult the process would be. Also worth noting that some countries like Japan ban certain medications like Adderall, so depending on what you need, not all countries can give you the same things you can get in the US.
Yes. Quick lookup gives Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Norway, Cuba, Sweden has copays with a limit. Need to do your homework, but some have very easy residency requirements. With Europe the best bet is to get jus sanguinis citizenship if you have any ancestor who came in a boat.
The amount to move the family overseas & fund living expenses for the days/months needed to find sustainable jobs - it exceeds the amount to buy healthcare here.
That kind of money it takes to move a family overseas and then set them up for the length of time needed to find a sustainable job(s) - if I had it, I could also afford healthcare.
If I get cancer, I die. That's what I can afford.
reply