88 wrote:H4ever wrote:What about a working American say, making 10 bucks an hour, and the father of a young daughter who came down with RSV or pneumonia and while not castastrophic at first, could eventually take the life of this young American daughter of a working American father who cannot afford 350 bucks a month for a policy at work with a 2500 dollar deductible and a 20% copay?
Why should his child almost DIE before healthcare can be obtained at an ER? Now you know why the steady march to socialism continues. It SOUNDS better to millions of Americans in similar predicaments. Did you expect them to NOT vote for buffoons? Just let the greedy-fucks in the insurance industry continue golfing in Cabo while his daughter hacks her lungs up and writhes around in pain, screaming and crying wanting Daddy to do something about her pain?
The working American I mentioned happened to be a relative of mine. He chose rent and grocery money over a policy of little benefit he could not afford and sure as shit...his child became deathly ill.
P.S. He did not qualify for medicaid because he works and was too pround to quit his job. Should have bettered himself? He had a motorcycle accident ten years ago and is doing the best he can. Not enough brain damage to qualify for SSI. What of him or the countless others out there?
H4ever-
Your story would be compelling "but for" the existence of laws already in place to deal with this situation. First, medical providers were required by existing law to treat Daddy's young daughter with RSV whether Daddy had insurance or not. She would get the exact same treatment as someone with insurance. The physicians and nurses in the room providing the treatment would have no idea whether Daddy had insurance or not unless Daddy volunteered that information. Second, in the event that Daddy did not have health insurance to pay the cost of young daughter's medical treatment (and I'll take your word that Daddy did not qualify for any of the myriad of welfare programs that would pay a child's health care expenses in that situation), we already have very liberal bankruptcy laws in this country. Daddy wouldn't go to jail for non-payment of the medical services his daughter received and he didn't pay for. He would very likely be discharged from ever having to pay those debts.
Bankruptcy is filed all the time in this country. Many times it is filed because the debtor did not have insurance to cover medical treatment the debtor received. That is what bankruptcy laws are for. The debtor gets a new start and the debtor's creditors get fucked in the ass. Since we've now apparently eliminated catastrophic medical expenses as an excuse for declaring bankruptcy, do we now amend those laws to make it tougher to get a discharge from debts? Or is bankruptcy just for the those who voluntarily incur enormous debts that they cannot pay?
And by the way, those who declare bankruptcy often do not lose their home. They do not lose their possessions and get tossed into the street. They just lose their debts. Its quite a nice thing to do, if your conscience allows you to sleep well at night knowing that your debts are being paid by your neighbors.
So you think I made this up? What is THAT uncomfortable to read? Was it so uncomfortable it tempted one to search for reasons to discredit it?
If you do the math here...put a little thought into it...you would see that he was unable to take his daughter to a clinic (like all parents who love their kids do) because of a prior bankruptcy that included medical debts incurred from follow-up care and rehab years after his accident. He didn't get any future medical consideration in his settlement and his attorney advised him to settle. He got a pretty low settlement because the extent of his injuries and future issues wasn't known at the time. He also had a judgement or two since where they garnish his wages to this day at the maximum legal rate. I don't know all the details because he is pretty embarrassed about how his finances are and refuses any help from relatives. We have to send the girl birthday and he then buys her the extra things he would love to give her. Never accepts money for himself. He's not bad with his money, he has just had shitty luck all the way around.
Anyhow...due to him not being able to take her to a clinic early on,he treated her with OTC meds for what he suspected was a bad cold. Shit progressed and when she was later in crisis and taken to the ER....she was THEN diagnosed with RSV and pneumonia. He didn't know up front, therefore your contention that he could have sought treatment earlier and there are laws that guarantee this is horseshit. They would have refused him at the front fucking counter and you know it.
Jmak- I agree that this legislation isn't the proper way to fix shit like this but just consider it fallout from the suffering of WORKING Americans who get 78% increases in premiums since 2001 with reduced benefits, higher co-pays and deductibles and the Insurance industries enjoy record profits as a result of this.
I agree that a free market type of insurance with no HMO's would have been better but it seems no one cared until it was too late/they realized they fucked up.