> you should hope that your health insurance covers it.
I don't think that the choice between thousands of dollars of debt and death is a hard one to make... Even in this case where without the anti-venom you could 'wait out' the venom on breathing apparatus, it will cost your $100K+ (according to the article). You don't really have many choices. It basically comes down to: death or debt. I know which one I choose.
That leads into a whole other debate. Death vs. Debt is straightforward when you're 30 or 40 and looking at $100k to cure a snakebite. It's an entirely different issue when you're 70 and looking at a $2m cancer treatment, the only problem is then you know that your debt will be payed for by the government.
> Death vs. Debt is straightforward when you're 30 or 40 and looking at $100k to cure a snakebite. It's an entirely different issue when you're 70 and looking at a $2m cancer treatment, the only problem is then you know that your debt will be payed for by the government.
That may be, but this entire discussion is around snakebites and anti-venom which is a lot different than a (possibly) terminal condition like cancer. You're completely changing the frame of reference when you compare 2 different types of health issue and two different age brackets at the same time...
Good point but even if the 70y.o. had a snakebite that would cost $100k to cure it's still a debate. My point wasn't that you shouldn't go into debt to cure a snakebite. I was just trying to show that your point was over-simplified and is a debate not a given.
I don't think that the choice between thousands of dollars of debt and death is a hard one to make... Even in this case where without the anti-venom you could 'wait out' the venom on breathing apparatus, it will cost your $100K+ (according to the article). You don't really have many choices. It basically comes down to: death or debt. I know which one I choose.