An alternative to mandatory insurance, would be to make it more difficult for people to get rid of

[Tony_FLADEM]

Medical debts via bankruptcy. If health insurance becomes cheaper and the government provides subsidies to those with low incomes, an alternative to mandatory insurance, would be to make it more difficult for the uninsured to pass their health care costs on to the tax payer.

You can't get out of student loans through bankruptcy and perhaps the same should hold for health care if reform passes.

[Rex]

1. Health 'insurance' should be free and people who make money

off of sick people should find another job.

[dkf]

3. Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

[Rex]

7. Well we will with taxpayer money, unless that is no good.

That is if enough people think life and liberty are worth something. They sure think death and killing is worth billions so we shall see.

[dkf]

2. Isn't bankruptcy for medical debts for those who have health insurance?

I would have thought that it would be hard to even get debt for medical care if you have no insurance as you won't get care unless its an emergency.

Do hospitals give cancer treatments if you have no money?

[Matariki]

5. I had a friend who broke his wrist and ended up with a $12k debt

no way in the world he could ever begin to pay that - his income barely covered the cost of living in this expensive city.

[Tony_FLADEM]

9. That's the system we have now.

If the government is providing help for low income people to buy insurance, and it becomes less costly, there is less of a reason for him not to have insurance. Instead of having a rigid mandate, he should pay his $12k debt.

[Matariki]

16. "he should pay his $12k debt"??? He CAN'T.

And you're suggesting that medical debt follow a person forever like student loans?

People in Canada pay $54 a month for healthcare and don't have co-pays and deductibles. Why can't we achieve something like that?

[Tony_FLADEM]

20. We can't achieve something like that because we have a $700 billion defense budget

and the United States pays for all the other country's health care systems though higher medical costs.

I agree your friend can't pay the 12k debt now and I understand. I am talking about mandating everyone get health insuranance going forward.

If the government is going to provide a subsidy for your friend or if he makes a good income, there is not much of a reason he shouldn't get insurance.

Instead of mandating it, it should be more difficult for people who make that choice, to get rid of their debt.

[dkf]

31. Did he land up needing surgery?

I agree that the cost of living, mostly housing, is crazy.

We should have never let housing costs get so out of control.

[Matariki]

33. Yes. He had a bicycle accident and needed surgery

He was working at a small company that didn't provide benefits. He was making about $12 an hour, but in Seattle that doesn't go very far.

[Tony_FLADEM]

10. If you have reform, fewer people who have insurance will file bankruptcy.

[dkf]

30. Are you sure?

I haven't seen much that will correct denial of claims etc.

[Matariki]

4. Are you fucking mad?

And define 'cheaper'.

[Tony_FLADEM]

8. I'm not fucking mad.

It's going to be very difficult to mandate everyone in a country of 300 million people get insurance. If some people don't want insurance, but can afford it through government subsidies or their own income, they shouldn't be allowed to pass their expenses unto everyone else. That's the problem we have today.

[Rex]

11. No the problem we have today is some idiot decided to waste

trillions of dollars and now we are stuck in two unending wars and a huge economic depression. One party just spent all the money and didn't give a shit about helping his/her fellow American.

[Matariki]

12. medical catastrophes are the major reason for bankruptcy

People don't declare bankruptcy for fun.

Your post is ignorant and callous.

[Tony_FLADEM]

15. That's the system we have now.

It's perfectly understandable why people file bankruptcy today.

If reform passes, and the government spends billions of dollars to help people buy health insurance, and the insurance companies are more regulated, it should be more difficult for people to decide not to get insurance.

What would be the point of having reform if someone could still pass their medical costs unto the tax payer.

[Matariki]

21. Here's the problem with your idea

or one of many problems anyway.

What's going to be the cut off point for help in buying insurance? $20k, $30k, $40k, what?

Now define 'cheaper insurance'. Someone posted earlier that their family is paying over $1100 a month. Will 'cheaper' mean $900 or $54?

What will happen to people who make more than the cut off and still can't afford insurance? There are plenty of people who have a decent enough incomes but far higher than average expenses. You're saying these people should be forced into a lifetime of debt without relief?

Do you work for the insurance industry, or the banking industry?

[Tony_FLADEM]

24. If I worked for the insurance industry, I would be for the mandate.

The cut off point for helping people buy insurance isn't my problem, there is going to be a cut off regardless of any plan that passes.

Most people including some people on DU don't like the mandate idea. In order to achieve the objective of the mandate, which is to prevent the shifting of cost unto the tax payer, making it more difficult to rid oneself of medical debt would be an alternative.

That would give people an incentive to get insurance without having a mandate which alot of people are against. That's all I'm saying.

[regnaD kciN]

27. No shit, Sherlock...

If I worked for the insurance industry, I would be for the mandate.

And, if I was a burglar, I would be for a federal law mandating that people leave their houses unlocked when going on a trip. So?

[ipaint]

23. No that isn't the problem we have today.

Total uncompensated care represents 2.2% of total health care spending estimated for 2008.12 This is a much smaller share of total spending than the uninsured’s share of the total population because the uninsured use less care than the insured (holding health status constant), because they pay for much of their care themselves and because their health is generally better than the insured’s. The total insured population includes almost all of the elderly (covered by Medicare), as well as most institutionalized and disabled. Taking the entire population into account, insured adults (including the elderly but excluding people covered by Medicaid) spend about $350 per person through taxes, donations, and payments for private health care and private insurance to subsidize care received by the uninsured. 12

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7809.pdf

The problem is overhead and excessive profit in the for profit healthcare industry. That is over 30%. The only way to get that number down to a reasonable amount is preferaby get rid of the profit motive and if that's just too difficult for our paid off representatives we need to heavily regulate the industry and get most of the country into a government run option with tough negotiating power to drive down prices across the board.
The irony is much more of our tax dollars will be going towards paying subsidized premiums to cover the bloated overhead and profit of an out of control private industry than we pay out now to cover the uninsured.

[JVS]

18. Possibly just evil.

[shimmergal]

6. Quite the contrary--

Medical debts are usually incurred under some sort of duress. It would make more sense to make these unenforceable.

[sohndrsmith]

13. ah.... spoken like - someone I don't understand. WHAT are you talking about?

Far as I can tell, people who file for bankruptcy are usually tax payers...

Tell me, this great idea of imposing "medical debts" on those who have them (and I'm sure they incur them because they WANT to...) cannot file for bankruptcy.

If, as you suggest, if "health insurance becomes cheaper and the government provides subsidies".... then people wouldn't find them in debt because of traumatic accident or catastrophic illness or just a flipping genetic disorder that impairs their health (if not managed - but can't be managed because it labels one as "uninsurable")

I'm guessing you're priority is a fiscal one as opposed to a human one.

I have a better idea: For those who want to penalize people because of their imperfect health - lets enact legislation for these folks so they can "opt-out" of Medicare and Social Security. That will definitely help and aligns with their ideology.... I think it's workable.

[Tony_FLADEM]

19. Most people in this country don't want a mandate from the government to get insurance.

What's the point of having reform and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, if it's easy for some to go without insurance.

I am not talking about people with chronic health problems, those people in 99% of instances will choose insurance. I'm talking about people who think nothing will happen to them.

[Matariki]

22. Single payer would solve alll this bullshit.

Canada does it for $54 a month.

Your posts on this are either very unthinking or just plain heartless.

[Tony_FLADEM]

25. The United States pays for Canada's health system

The government mandates the lower prices, and then the medical providers charge U.S. patients 2 or 3 times the amount to make up the difference.

[Matariki]

28. That's it. You are officially ON CRACK.

Canada's health care system is NOT subsidized by US patients. Sheesh. That's just dumb.

I'm going to ask you to back up that nonsense with some links. That should keep you busy and out of trouble for a LONG time.

[conflictgirl]

29. WHAT?! What about the people with chronic health problems who cannot afford insurance

but would not qualify for any sort of subsidies?

Look around at the economy right now, this is not a good time to impose mandatory additional expenses on anyone. Other than the highest earners, there are few people who could afford even an "affordable" insurance plan costing an extra couple hundred dollars a month. No one really benefits from the mandated insurance plan except the insurance companies.

[Liquorice]

14. I think it would be kinder and make more sense to just have mandatory insurance instead. nt

[JVS]

17. apples and oranges.

Student loans need protection from people declaring bankruptcy because when one finishes education, they are in the odd situation of having increased their earning potential but are also at a point where (traditionally) they have very little in the way of assets. If possible, declaring bankruptcy and distributing all of your assets on hand to your creditors (all that nothing that you own) would be wise. Thus lenders are protected by the law.

Medical debts are a very different animal. Getting medical care does not increase your earnings, in fact the onset of large medical expenses often marks the end of someone's ability to remain in the workforce (that cancer, heart attack, or stroke in the late 50's). I see no reason that people in such a precarious situation should be denied the protection that bankruptcy can afford them.

[regnaD kciN]

26. "If health insurance becomes cheaper"...

That's the big catch right there -- there's no indication that any plan short of single-payer or a public option based on Medicare rates will cause health insurance to become cheaper. It might keep it from becoming even more drastically expensive than it is now, but, if you think current premium rates are already impossible to pay, any other reform plan will leave you S.O.L.

[Liberal In Texas]

32. Just as soon as corporations aren't allowed bankruptcy.

Bad idea all around.