Will Brown wrote:Jim O'Bryan wrote:
WB Is that an actual case where you could provide verification, or did you just make it up? You seem to have a rather complete ignorance of how bankruptcy works. Generally, it protects much of the filer's assets, so he doesn't lose them.
WB Just how does your having had some medical treatment relate to the question of bankruptcy? That makes no sense.
I favor having multiple programs that will compete with each other for my business. We could establish minimum standards and then the customer could decide if he wants to pay for only the minimums, or to buy top shelf whiskey.
I don't know the best solution for those young people who think they will never get old or sick. Compelling them to buy coverage seems like an abridgment of freedom. But allowing them to have no coverage means the rest of us will end up paying for treatment when they actually need it.
Will Brown
Excuse as I pulled a couple quotes, to answer not the entire post.
While it protects "much" of the filers assets, it does not protect most. It is a life
changing experience, and could potentially run a family to the poor house, devastating
that family for a long time. It is a life changing experience. And is nowhere near the
"get out of jail once every seven years for free" that it was. One could even say it has
been tailored just for these situations as it does not clear medical/credit debt. Just helps
to manage you assets to pay that off.
As for myself, I went in for a cold, and came out $160,000 poorer. So then let's say my wife went in, after I filed, and then my kids? While I am ignorant on bankruptcy and the
ever changing tightening, harder to get progam, most having not needed it yet. Are you
saying it would have protected me, my family with nothing more than a small bump in the
road?
What I am getting at is that countries like England, France, Germany seem to have taken
this part of life out of their day to day lives very nicely, without bankrupting their economy.
The British plan seems like a very good plan with emphasis placed on prevention, that has
proven to decrease costs across the board.
As for one plan, it is theoretically a good idea, make it basic health care allowing all of those
that want better care or selective surgery pay for it.
As David Anderson pointed out, it would be a great stimulus package for the business
incubator in America called "small business." Last week I started looking at health care
for all of the Observer papers, and we are having trouble putting together a real program
that can be managed by the companies we are talking to. It would be a patch quilt of
three different programs. One for health care, one to cover the gaps in that and another
for "major medical" moments. Now as I look over the propaganda put out on the pro
single payer side, they claim, these companies have a 30%-45% management rate for
these plans. As opposed to the 3% for the VA, and 3.5% of Medicare. Could it be that the
government can do some things better like the post office, and the VA plan?
If innovation was the number of reason for expense. Medicine would cost the same on
both sides of the borders. I am not saying it is not one of the reasons, but the biggest
reason in the USA is the lobbying, to keep the machine going strong.
But them, I am one of the ignorant masses that do not understand how what a positive
impact bankruptcy is on a family of four.
.