I am aware that rattlesnake venom is actually surprisingly toxic, more so than most people realize. That said, from what I have heard, most rattlesnakes have an unusually weak bite that doesn't often envenomate, and when it does, the venom yield tends to be on the lower side. So it is possible that this was an unusually strong bite with a high venom yield. 

And regarding your assessment with health care costs, that is also undeniably true. There are many, many facets as to why the American healthcare system is terrible. That said, hopefully Obamacare, which is showing to be very effective in reducing the rates of the uninsured, can help with the problem you mentioned. But even then, there's also the problem with extremely high co-pays and deductibles, which make even cheap, small operations unfeasable to the poor if they still have to pay 1,000 dollars or more for a simple surgery.

Maybe I'm reading the bill wrongly, but it seems the patient was only treated for 6 days, so I actually suspect this was more of a light case.

There's the big part of the problem with the US healthcare system. Insurance should not be used in the manner it is. Insurance should only be for major, rare, and uncontrollable instances like cancer.... or, apparently, rattlesnake bites.

The fact that you have to buy one plan to cover basically everything to do with healthcare is ludicrous. These small operations, doctor visits, and most pharmaceuticals should be paid out of pocket, or via some kind of medical savings account. Pushing them through the insurance model just explodes costs.

---

Obamacare will cause the cost of healthcare to go up. It's simple math/economics. All Obamacare did was increase the amount of demand for health care (providing insurance to a greater pool of people) without doing anything to improve the supply situation. In fact, this has been the basis of just about all healthcare interventions in the US healthcare market in past decades: increasing demand, leaving supply static or actually reducing supply.

Increased demand and static/reduced supply = one thing. Higher prices. They may materialize in the premium, they may materialize in the deductible, they may materialize in somebody else's premium or deductible, or they may even materialize in your or somebody else's tax bill if the Gov't chooses to subsidize those increased costs. Point it, price will go up, and somebody will have to pay.

Prices will stop going up, and actually start decreasing, if the Gov't put in place legislation to increase the supply of healthcare: reducing or eliminating/reducing any taxes or regs, eliminating "certificates of need", legalizing medical marijuana, reducing length of medical patent life, reducing the AMA's grip on the control of who can work in the healthcare market.

Whoa, i would try my chances at surviving the poisoning

Should have chopped of that leg and collect those welfare cheques..

It is not actually as simple as the way you put it, as, in theory, the universal mandate increased the "supply" of low-cost, low-risk individuals in the health insurance risk pool.

The ACA took a three-pronged approach, because people wanted things like an extension of the age students could be on their parents' healthcare, and the removal of pre-existing conditions as a basis for denial of coverage. This is the first prong of the approach.

The second prong is to increase the risk pool. That's where the health insurance mandate comes in. Most of the people that couldn't afford health insurance previously were healthy twenty-to-forty somethings that felt that health insurance wasn't beneficial to them, since they were healthy. In a sense, by not having these people in the risk pool, health insurance couldn't pay for the much more costly people -- this is why health insurance companies adopted the pre-existing condition excuse. They didn't have the profitable people (the young, healthy individuals) to essentially pay for the unhealthy individuals.

That, naturally, leads into the third prong of the ACA. Of course, there are people who can't afford the mandate of Obamacare. Thus, subsidies for health care are put in place so that the low income individuals can afford it and join the risk pool.

I hope this explanation help to explain the theory behind the economics of the ACA.

Edit: Community rating for the ACA is also part of the first prong.

Edit 2: Here is an interesting read on health insurance rate increases under Obamacare. They are rising at a normal level. It should also be noted that 2015 is a really, really weird year and, from what I have read, the unusually low rise in costs in 2015 shouldn't be attributed to Obamacare. http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

My aunt needed to get some dental work done here in Florida and it was going to cost her $5300 US. We're from Jamaica and she went back there and stayed with my grandma while waiting to get the procedures underway. With plane ticket costs included she paid $1100 for everything. Half of it was the cost of the plane ticket. My wife, the hardcore right-wing politic that she is, says she'd only trust an American doctor to do such serious procedures. I told my wife that most of the doctors here in the states are from other countries. It's been more than 4 years and my aunt is fine.

On-topic though, this is without insurance. Had this person been on an insurance plan he/she would probably only pay $40,000. Lord knows everyday Americans all have 40k lying around. 

Very happy to be Canadian at the moment.

Oh believe me I know first hand. Even I went abroad (Jordan)  to do my teeth once.

Bascially this... as horrible as that sounds, it might actually have been the better option for most people.

I cant believe the system is at a point where a snake bite, can have those economical effects on a person.