GoFundMe or not?!!?

I had to go to the hospital for a test onetime and they said they accepted my insurance... a few weeks later I got this massive bill from them for a few thousand dollars. They said o well we had to send off the data to some other random place outside the hospital and they didn't accept your insurance. I told them whatever you said it was covered I am not paying for your mistake of lying to me. I never heard from them again and never paid a dime.

Eric D wrote:

It's a modern form of panhandling.  I don't believe that people should panhandle and that would be the very last option for me.  But, it's a question of personal morals and people have the right to panhandle.

^^ This ^^  

dragons wrote:

Tradiban, I am curious to know why you are focusing on the "accident" GoFundMe cases.

This makes me wonder: do you give to other types of GoFundMe campaigns? E.g. do you find GoFundMe campaigns for things like funeral expenses, IVF, school supplies, etc. to be highly objectionable?

Another question: if someone is in an accident through no fault of their own, is that an "okay" type of GoFundMe, in your view? For example, suppose they were in an automobile wreck that was caused by the drunk driver of another vehicle, and now they have unforeseen expenses. What if they were hit by a drunk driver, while they were driving to a movie...? Maybe it's kind of irresponsible to go to the movies, actually. They could've stayed home, after all. It was an unnecessary drive. Maybe insurance companies should only reimburse those who are behaving in completely responsible and necessary activities, like going to work, or to the grocery store.

Yes, I give to other GoFundMes. Some are obnoxious and most are not, but that isn't the topic du jour.

Yes, no fault accidents are justified, however if you are a responsible person who makes good choices (usually) you won't need a GoFundMe.

eli poss wrote:

So you're saying that only wealthy people should be morally justified in their choice to go climbing? What about poor ass college students? What about poor ass college students who have an outdoor education or adventure education major? Climbing might be part of their education

Lol, why do "poor ass college students" feel so entitled? It's possible to have good health coverage and go to school. Their first mistake might be picking outdoor education as a major, not great prospects for a stable and fruitful lifestyle.

Greg D wrote:

Umm, the government doesn't pay for anything.  It does, however, take from one person and give it to another. 

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about insurance companies? They're taking several people's premiums and using it to pay for a few people's medical costs, right?

s.price wrote:

A little research on your part would show Al Gore had nothing to do with the invention of the internet. I realize that may have been an attempt at humor but such an attempt actually requires something being funny. 

People reached out to their community for help when needed. Often still do. We recently had a fund raiser jam session for a friend to help cover expenses. And in those few hours raised more than the OP's stated annual income. The guy had insurance but needed help with the rest of life. GoFundMe has just opened up the community. 

Seems to me the title of the thread answers its own question. Either participate by contributing or do not. The rest is just standing in judgement of the situation.

I respect that you put on an event, I have done the same for a friend actually. A fundraiser event is a cool thing to do, but GoFundMe in just putting a hand out and the unjustified GoFundmes dilute the justified ones.

Tradiban wrote:

Lol, why do "poor ass college students" feel so entitled? It's possible to have good health coverage and go to school. Their first mistake might be picking outdoor education as a major, not great prospects for a stable and fruitful lifestyle.

So wanting to climb rocks without having the means to obtain amazing health coverage is being entitled? I'm just pointing out that your statement was inherently elitist and means that poor people should be stigmatized for climbing rocks because they can't afford very extensive health insurance.

Climbing and other outdoor adventure activities can have huge psychological and physiological impact on people for the better. Are poor people not equally entitled to reap the health benefits of adventure and the outdoors, especially when they are statistically more likely to need those benefits in order to be healthy?

Also, not all of us choose to pursue things in life that make us a bunch of money. There's a lot more potential value in a career other than a high salary. My dad has taught middle school history for almost 30 years now, and he gets paid jack shit. But he's able to make a huge impact on some students and help them to create better lives for themselves. He gets to make a real positive difference for some of his students and that means a lot to him. It means a lot more than his small paycheck.

s.price wrote:

Your right TB, the dilution is a problem. I wish I knew if you are referring to a specific incident or just in general to help covering medical expenses. Medical expenses can go far beyond the scope of ones insurance. 

My current health issues are a prime example of this. My best options for cutting edge treatment require me to rent a place to stay and many flights back home to live my life as I see fit with what I may or may not have left of it. My insurance doesn't cover that but it could be argued they are medical expenses.

No specific incident and I think almost any illness would be a legitimate cause for a GoFundMe...unless you smoked 6 packs a day and wanted a new pair of lungs.

I will say that Ammons amputation came to me as an inspiration for this thread but I don't know the details of his situation. I think there's ba definite lack of personal responsibility in today's society, a lack of responsibility that A. The responsible people pay for and B. The irresponsible people blame on others.

For a micro analogy, it's the roommate we have all had that is always complaining that they don't have any money but dutifully buys a 6 pack of brews every other day.... priorities.

eli poss wrote:

So wanting to climb rocks without having the means to obtain amazing health coverage is being entitled? I'm just pointing out that your statement was inherently elitist and means that poor people should be stigmatized for climbing rocks because they can't afford very extensive health insurance.

Climbing and other outdoor adventure activities can have huge psychological and physiological impact on people for the better. Are poor people not equally entitled to reap the health benefits of adventure and the outdoors, especially when they are statistically more likely to need those benefits in order to be healthy?

Also, not all of us choose to pursue things in life that make us a bunch of money. There's a lot more potential value in a career other than a high salary. My dad has taught middle school history for almost 30 years now, and he gets paid jack shit. But he's able to make a huge impact on some students and help them to create better lives for themselves. He gets to make a real positive difference for some of his students and that means a lot to him. It means a lot more than his small paycheck.

I make under 35k, I have always had good healthcare, I minimize risks in my activities. I chose a stable lifestyle over climbing rocks 5 days a week, like I really wanted to do. It's too bad that healthcare costs alot and it's too bad that we all can't climb rocks all the time AND have healthcare but that's life, you have to choose your priorities.

Money means nothing to me... until it means everything.

Marcelo F wrote:

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about insurance companies? They're taking several people's premiums and using it to pay for a few people's medical costs, right?

Agreed, except for the healthy slice that insurance companies take out for their executive salaries and unquenchable thirst for profit.

eli poss wrote:

So wanting to climb rocks without having the means to obtain amazing health coverage is being entitled? I'm just pointing out that your statement was inherently elitist and means that poor people should be stigmatized for climbing rocks because they can't afford very extensive health insurance.

Climbing and other outdoor adventure activities can have huge psychological and physiological impact on people for the better. Are poor people not equally entitled to reap the health benefits of adventure and the outdoors, especially when they are statistically more likely to need those benefits in order to be healthy?

Also, not all of us choose to pursue things in life that make us a bunch of money. There's a lot more potential value in a career other than a high salary. My dad has taught middle school history for almost 30 years now, and he gets paid jack shit. But he's able to make a huge impact on some students and help them to create better lives for themselves. He gets to make a real positive difference for some of his students and that means a lot to him. It means a lot more than his small paycheck.

Teachers generally get pretty good benefits. 

Marcelo F wrote:

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about insurance companies? They're taking several people's premiums and using it to pay for a few people's medical costs, right?

No, they are making 900+% profit margins by taking in piles of money and paying very little out............ JB

s.price wrote:

Just curious but could a poor ass college student qualify for Medicaid? Honest question as I don't know what that takes.

Most colleges have student health coverage as part of full-time tuition. If not, the ACA has special "student" plans. 

s.price wrote:

Just curious but could a poor ass college student qualify for Medicaid? Honest question as I don't know what that takes.

Parents can keep their children on their own policies up age 26 (or is it 25?). If the parents didn't have insurance or didn't want to put their children on their policies, you can get Medicaid if your income is below a certain amount (14,000?). 

John Barritt wrote:

No, they are making 900+% profit margins by taking in piles of money and paying very little out............ JB

Yep, I thought about adding something about that major difference between government and insurance companies. But the thought of getting into that discussion with people on the internet depressed me, so I hit "enter" and grabbed a beer.

s.price wrote:

A little research on your part would show Al Gore had nothing to do with the invention of the internet. 

Thanks for the info! I never would have known. 

Taliban, I donate to whatever worthy cause comes my way. sickness or accident. also donated to help get a climbing area open.  Its not a bleeding heart its called being a decent human being.  the go fund me is a a modern and very effective way to help people. Seems like  you  have the I have mine so everyone else should suck it up or fuck off and die attitude. Annother favorite of the trumpers is I ain't got shit and am completly screwed so why should anyone else get a helping hand....  Again it simply comes down to being a decent human.  If enough of us help those in need  hopefully the mindset will change so that when we are down and out someone will help us. 

For some people,  it's hard to disagree without sounding like you're throwing a tantrum. 

No tantrum. Simply calling out folks who think its bad to help people in need because somehow they feel that they have made better choices than those in need. 

20 kN wrote:

Prior to the ACA there were plans on the market that [...] provided little or no coverage out of network so if you were not lucky enough for the ER to take you to a hospital that happened to be in network (which you obviously cant check in a real emergency), then you were completely SOL in many cases. 

This is absolutely true and happened to me.  The ambulance didn't ask what hospital was "in network," but their choice to take me to the closest one cost me $8,000.  I went on a payment plan - took me years to pay off.  The idea that I was supposed to tell the ambulance driver to go to another, further away hospital is just silly.  My plan stated it covered 100% of ER visits.  In hindsight, not really.  The insurance company claimed the hospital over-charged, and would only pay what they called the "usual and customary rate."  Although this term sounds like a nice thing, it's really just a schedule of prices the insurance company thinks is appropriate and has nothing to do with "custom" or the market "rate." This meant I had to pay the rest.