Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-07-2017, 09:55 AM
 
18,983 posts, read 9,078,154 times
Reputation: 14688

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Why would a person with $500,000 in medical bills not declare bankruptcy?
They would probably be forced to. That's the point. If they had insurance to cover their medical bills, they wouldn't have $500,000 in outstanding unpaid medical bills, now would they?

Last edited by JAMS14; 05-07-2017 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,285,621 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Why would a person with $500,000 in medical bills not declare bankruptcy?
they would, but do you think that occurs without consequence? When health care providers have to write off half a million dollars someone is going to pay for it and it won't be their CEO, it will result in higher prices to consumers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:03 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Why would a person with $500,000 in medical bills not declare bankruptcy?
That's sort of the point...

Are you seriously suggesting that we should all be fine with people suffering complete financial ruin when they get sick? If that's not what you're suggesting, then what on earth is your point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,285,621 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Oh, so you are saying the poor already have their health insurance needs met and the ACA did nothing for the poor?
Both expanded medicaid and cost sharing subsidies are features of the ACA, they did not exist prior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:07 AM
 
4,491 posts, read 2,226,625 times
Reputation: 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Not true. There are also those who run up bills that never get paid which means those who do not want to help out end up paying anyway as their health care just got more expensive.
True. This is why I think universal healthcare is the only sensible path. With what you said in mind, let's consider this issue from the standpoint of a fiscal conservative. Social programs like medicare aren't going anywhere. They're grandfathered in and most people support them. Currently, Americans spend more tax dollars on healthcare than any other post-industrial western democracy, but each individual gets the least out of it by contrast. So consider this: as it, we already pay for someone's healthcare and this is unavoidable given the nature of insurance AND the current system is not cost effective. Complete privatization, rather one likes it or not, is an impossibility (at least at this point and well into the foreseeable future). Universal healthcare would cost more, no doubt, but it would solve the cost effective problem. Frankly, I think that's the best we can actually do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:11 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,621,539 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
They would probably be forced to. That's the point. If they had insurance to cover their medical bills, they wouldn't have $500,000 in medical bills, now would they?
And they have the CHOICE of getting insurance to keep that from happening, that's why it's called insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
they would, but do you think that occurs without consequence? When health care providers have to write off half a million dollars someone is going to pay for it and it won't be their CEO, it will result in higher prices to consumers.
And when that $500,000 in bills is paid by the insurance companies, it's paid for by the other people paying for insurance.

-----------

The real issue is how those with serious pre-existing conditions are paid for.

Personally, I'd like would like to see a federal catastrophic and uninsurable insurance plan that everyone participates in and everyone must help pay for.

People should be responsible for their own normal medical care, but there should be a system that helps with catastrophic illness and the serious pre-existing conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:13 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,621,539 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Both expanded medicaid and cost sharing subsidies are features of the ACA, they did not exist prior.
And they could have been expanded seperate of the ACA.

If you have a stained carpet in your living room, it doesn't mean you must put new floors in the entire house.

The ACA was the worst "solution" for some real problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:17 AM
 
18,983 posts, read 9,078,154 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
And they have the CHOICE of getting insurance to keep that from happening, that's why it's called insurance.
By George, I think he's got it!

I HAVE insurance under the ACA that I pay a premium for every month. Under the POS bill the House just passed, being over 50, I would not be able to afford to buy insurance. Thus, I will have NO CHOICE about having insurance.

Good boy! You finally got there!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:20 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,621,539 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
By George, I think he's got it!

I HAVE insurance under the ACA that I pay a premium for every month. Under the POS bill the House just passed, being over 50, I would not be able to afford to buy insurance. Thus, I will have NO CHOICE about having insurance.

Good boy! You finally got there!
Under ACA, did you have the CHOICE not to buy insurance?

There, good boy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 10:28 AM
 
18,983 posts, read 9,078,154 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Under ACA, did you have the CHOICE not to buy insurance?

There, good boy.
I was THRILLED to finally be able to buy insurance. That's what you don't understand. You have no concept of what it was like to have no access to health insurance. It's a terrifying way to live, always hoping and praying you don't get into an accident or get sick. You know not of what you speak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:45 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top