The first place to look is what the consequences for bankruptcy, I suspect.
Supreme Court Decisions
- Thread starter Stoked
- Start date
The first place to look is what the consequences for bankruptcy, I suspect.
I'm all for adding options. As long as they support coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.20 percent in the United States during 2006 and 0.27 percent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.30 percent in both 2006 and 2007. The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.
https://american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth
Absolutely. I am also fine with someone paying someone elses insurance. For example if I want to pay insurance for my daughters while they go thru college why in the hell is that anyones business? Why should I not be able to? So I am a fan of the age 26 under parent sinsurance thing. I think age limits should be removed entirely.
Tort insurance was responsible for less than 5% of the increase in health care costs, IIRC. It's a big red flag designed to protect businesses from their own negligence, with little impact to consumers who receive good care.
There is already private-sector competition. No major market has just one health insurer, and very few small markets do.
This is the kind of healthy discussion we need to have in this country. We need to decide what we want, what won't work, and make it happen.
I agree. The problem is that nothing is about fixing problems anymore. It is all about political points. It is more about forcing your way on everyone (both sides are equally guilty in this). no discussion and no comprmoise = no real solutions.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I don't know about you but I don't want the government "fixing" problems. I want them to get the hell out of the way so we can fix our own damn problems.
Sometimes the government getting out is the answer. See marriage. You are preaching to the choir there. But sometimes on some issues government has to be involved. See immigration.
Hartsock
Banned
Soup?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
You act as though it is all voluntary, and that parents want to pay for their adult children's medical insurance with higher premiums, and that employees aren't going to drop insurance coverage altogether.
So that was three, some other wholly unrelated thing.
So in a critical reading test, you do understand that this is not the same point you were making earlier right?
You've stated that personal bankruptcy rates in Canada are higher. Ok. That has nothing to do with what percentage of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses in either country. In fact the article you link to declares the medical bankruptcy problem to be a myth but then pivots to talking about bankruptcy rates generally, so it doesn't support the point you were originally trying to make at all.
In fact, if you go further into the article it states that 15% of Canadian bankruptcies are primarily attributable to "medical reasons (including uninsured expenses)." Estimates of the percentage of bankruptcies that are primarily the result of medical costs in the United States vary widely, but you have to really play hard and strict to get numbers that low for the United States. Most studies with reasonable definitions of attributability land somewhere between 45 and 60% (personally I agree that the Elizabeth Warren study is a bit high, but that's largely because of the states they selected for the study).
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The major free-market idea was to allow insurance across state lines.
Now we have it where the Jazz can only draft players from Utah.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Like I said, obviously Roberts is down with making the victory pyrrhic. The argument that it is reasonably characterized as a tax largely seems to come from the idea of "if it involves a payment to the IRS as a penalty for non-compliance, it's probably a tax." Difficult to argue with that point, even if the "tax" is, in effect, an avoidable alternative payment.
That's the part of the decision that I understand the least. In effect, it seems to be saying that federal promises of medicaid funds are irrevocable in this instance. I haven't totally worked out this part of the decision yet.
No I don't.
You speak for all parents? If my children are actively in college pusruing a career and not laying around on their asses I would have no problem paying that insurance.
Also from what I understand just becasue the ACA allows for children up to age 26 to be on their parents insurance it allows for it.
Stop trying to intentionally misrepresent what I said.
