Read post #71. They are required by law to receive medical care but they are still financially liable for it. About half of personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why do the CONs want to withold Medical Care from those who need it?
- Thread starter alatide
- Start date
Read post #71. They are required by law to receive medical care but they are still financially liable for it. About half of personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs.
I'm happy you recogbized that. Having been called a "libbie," a socialist, a communist and a fascist I think turn around is fair play. Basically, I'm sick of the name calling that goes on here but unwilling to be one of the few brunts of the practice.
We pay, in France too, a private insurance that complements the public one. Mine costs 50 € a month for me, my wife and our two daughters.
I have no idea how much a US health insurance costs for a family (can anyone give me an idea ?)
That's just a question of point of view. Some just consider health care should be for everyone and for free, no matter if you work or not.
So, those who won't work are entitled to free health care and everything else I guess. That's just stupid!!!!!!!!!! Whose going to pay for it? Is it right for the government to take from those who work hard and give it to those who won't? I am sick and tired of being forced to pay the way for those who won't and don't.
I remember the source for your claim.
To be accurate - half of bankruptcies include some medical bills.
That does not mean that medical bills were the cause of half of bankruptcies.
This has already been pointed out to you many many many times now.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
alatide
The problem is that you change your moniker so often no one knows what to really call you other than that indicated by your posts.
Ours is paid for by our employer - our church. My two daughters are grocery store cashiers working part time (they're 17 and 19) and they have full health insurance through their union (had NO idea that would happen!). We don't pay anything for our insurance and I'm not sure if the girls have to pay a small amount for theirs (if they do, I've only seen a $2 deduction that I don't understand on their paycheck). However, I know our church is paying $700 per family per month for major medical - meaning that our insurance has a $6000 deductible. Then they are putting $500 a month into a health savings account for us to use towards the deductible. Next year, they'll be providing less for the HSA and we'll be paying a little more but if we don't use all of our HSA money this year, it will carry over to next year to use as we need it. When my husband was self-employed, he joined a union of small businesses to get health insurance and it cost us about $900 a month for that, paid through the company.
If we didn't have any health insurance, we could sign up for an insurance through our state that costs very little. For just the child version, here's the info: "There is no monthly premium for families whose income is less than 1.6 times the poverty level. That's about $563 a week for a three-person family, about $678 a week for a family of four. Families with somewhat higher incomes pay a monthly premium of $9, $15, $30, $45, or $60 per child per month, depending on their income and family size. For larger families, the monthly fee is capped at three children. If the family's income is more than 4 times the poverty level, they pay the full monthly premium charged by the health plan. There are no co-payments for services under Child Health Plus, so you don't have to pay anything when your child receives care through these plans." For the family health insurance, you have a choice of 7 insurance companies and it costs nothing - just co-pays. So in NY State, if you're eligible, you have access to health care.
Well now, isn't that a nice representation of what Christ told us to do?
Oh well.
And don't flatter yourself by playing the "paragon of virtue" role. Some of the ugliest insutls I've seen on here often came from you, many times directed at your favorite president.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Here are a few pieces to the puzzle that I believe are getting overlooked:
1. Yes, hospitals must treat someone in an EMERGENCY basis. However, they only have to stabilize them. If there is a public hospital for transfer, they will then be moved.
2. Waiting until things are bad enough for an emergency room visit is more expensive than early care and preventive care.
3. Guess who pays for uninsured emergency room visits? We are already paying for the uninsured, but they don't get as good of care, and the ER is more expensive than an office visit.
4. Guess who pays for the public hospitals, where available?
Bottom line, we can do better and get better value for the dollars we are spending. And unless we find a way to insure everyone, the cost of healthcare for ALL of us will continue to skyrocket to cover those costs. That also includes the monthly premiums and what is covered.
1. Yes, hospitals must treat someone in an EMERGENCY basis. However, they only have to stabilize them. If there is a public hospital for transfer, they will then be moved.
2. Waiting until things are bad enough for an emergency room visit is more expensive than early care and preventive care.
3. Guess who pays for uninsured emergency room visits? We are already paying for the uninsured, but they don't get as good of care, and the ER is more expensive than an office visit.
4. Guess who pays for the public hospitals, where available?
Bottom line, we can do better and get better value for the dollars we are spending. And unless we find a way to insure everyone, the cost of healthcare for ALL of us will continue to skyrocket to cover those costs. That also includes the monthly premiums and what is covered.
We can do better.
Point it out by giving some proof.
If that is a requirement then perhaps you should go first with your proof that half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
New Study: Bankruptcy Tied To Medical Bills
By Sarah Lovenheim
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html
Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released today by the American Journal of Medicine. That's nearly 20 percentage points higher than that pool of respondents reported were connected to medical costs in 2001.
Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance. Respondents who reported having insurance indicated average expenses of just under $18,000. Respondents who filed and lacked insurance had average medical bills of nearly $27,000.
Since 2007, the number of Americans without insurance has increased and filing for bankruptcy has become more difficult due to more stringent laws, according to the report.
The authors of the study, David Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne, Elizabeth Warren and Steffie Woolhandler, say their findings "reflect the U.S. health care financing system is broken." Middle class families, they conclude, "frequently collapse under the strain of the health care system that treats physical wounds, but inflicts fiscal ones."
This study does not prove what you claim that it does.
“medically bankrupt” debtors citing illness or medical bills as a specific reason for bankruptcy; OR reporting uncovered medical bills $1000 in the past 2 years; OR who lost at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness/injury; OR who mortgaged a home to pay medical bills."
Uncovered medical bills of $10,000 in the past two years does would not necessarily be the cause of the bankruptcy - it would depend on what other debts are involved.
Loss of two weeks of work related income due to illness/injury would not qualify as medical expenses causing the bankruptcy. It is the loss of wages from not working that would be the cause. Medical insurance or nationalized medicine would not change this. Medical insurance and nationalized medicine would not pay for lost wages.
Mortgaging a home to pay for medical bills would not necessarily be the cause of the bankruptcy - it would depend on the reason for not paying the mortgage - job loss for instance.
"Debtors who gave no answers regarding reasons for their bankruptcy were excluded from analyses."
This would skew the results - perhaps significantly.
"We altered the 2001 criteria to include debtors who had been forced to quit work due to illness or injury."
This would certainly skew the results. One does not quit work based on whether one has medical insurance or not. Quitting work and the loss of income would be the reason for the bankruptcy.
As I said previously, I knew that I would be able to disprove your agruement with your own source.
Last edited by a moderator:
????
Last year, i got flu in january, and was stopped for two weeks. The social system took in charge half my salary, and the company paid the rest of it, so that i didn't loose anything.
So Targus, you think the 4 authors of the study were oriented in their conclusion and that the time they spent on the analysis can be thrown away with a few " Or " and maybe " If " in this post ? I imagine if they came to these conclusions, there's a reason, an analysis before, some hours/weeks spent working on that, no ?
Is it so impossible/annoying to imagine it might be true ?
Last year, i got flu in january, and was stopped for two weeks. The social system took in charge half my salary, and the company paid the rest of it, so that i didn't loose anything.
So Targus, you think the 4 authors of the study were oriented in their conclusion and that the time they spent on the analysis can be thrown away with a few " Or " and maybe " If " in this post ? I imagine if they came to these conclusions, there's a reason, an analysis before, some hours/weeks spent working on that, no ?
Is it so impossible/annoying to imagine it might be true ?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. OK, maybe you won a debate point but what did you contribute? I'll back off and say that medical costs played an important role in 62% of personal bankruptcies. Now prove whatever point you're trying to make, if any.