Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I gauge my judgment as a former attending surgeon and by phd degree from tier one school in this country. I heard this news from radio station right next to ESPN, not CNN. I just use your best friend, google, to dig it out as a supporting document.
Are you still googling for a list of homes that have been sold at auction to pay medical bills?
Um, so you want to pull us out of the recession by a national healthcare, while ignoring the fact that this will be $1Trillion removed from the GDP for OTHER THINGS. haha, thats a good excuse.
I might go tomorrow to get medicine for the flu I have, just doing my part to help the GDP, but wait, I guess I wont be able to buy that new tv. haha
I noticed you didnt quote the story, here, let me help
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
National health care will not solve this problem. These same individuals will have to take time off of work.
Since 56% of them owned a home, find me ONE that lost their home due to medical bills? Why is it so hard? answer: because it doesnt happen. Medical bills = a judgment, PERIOD.. They dont file bankruptcy over the bills, they file bankruptcy because they got behind on other bills while taking time off of work, because they didnt save money in the bank to cover their bills in the event of an illness.
national health care will not solve your examples, people who dont have money to cover household expenses, will still not have money to cover household expenses and will still need to file bankruptcy when they get behind due to an illness.
I am foreigner who graduated from and work in this country. I am surprised that there are no public option in this country, and medical expense is one of the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country.
Meanwhile, insurance company and lawyers collected a huge portion of profit from health care plan and mal-practice insurance.
I support a public option. I also agree that health care insurance should not be a profitable business.
Ya... tort reform is something the people in America want because it will bring down costs quite a bit but our Gov has no interest in doing what the people want, only what isn't in out best interest.
Ya... our Gov insist a gov option is the only type of "choice and competition" that will fix all that is wrong with our system yet they refuse to take down State fences so the HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of EXISTING insurance companies we currently have in the country can compete with one another reducing costs. Only a Gov option will do that...
What a disgrace the people are that cry for the Gov to provide for them !
I noticed you didnt quote the story, here, let me help
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
National health care will not solve this problem. These same individuals will have to take time off of work.
Since 56% of them owned a home, find me ONE that lost their home due to medical bills? Why is it so hard? answer: because it doesnt happen. Medical bills = a judgment, PERIOD.. They dont file bankruptcy over the bills, they file bankruptcy because they got behind on other bills while taking time off of work, because they didnt save money in the bank to cover their bills in the event of an illness.
national health care will not solve your examples, people who dont have money to cover household expenses, will still not have money to cover household expenses and will still need to file bankruptcy when they get behind due to an illness.
If people had proper and timely access to needed medical care, do you think they could prevent their illness from becoming more serious therefore losing less time of work?
If people had proper and timely access to needed medical care, do you think they could prevent their illness from becoming more serious therefore losing less time of work?
um, people do. It costs about $75 to go see a family doctor. If you cant invest $75 in your own health, then why do you expect me to?
If people had proper and timely access to needed medical care, do you think they could prevent their illness from becoming more serious therefore losing less time of work?
No, not every illness can be detected months ahead of time.
For all you know these people got regular checkups and could have been just fine up until they fell ill.
You're stretching here to make it sound like healthcare insurance subsidies will solve all of America's problems.
Having a savings account for a rainy day would have helped them more then a piece of paper stamped "subsidized insurance".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
