Those 62% of Americans who file bankruptcy, who are forced to do so because of medical bills, not only push health insurance premiums up for everyone else, but also contribute to increases in all the other risk-factored interest rates and fees other Americans pay, the whole way down the line; on every other otherwise-unrelated loan on which those medical bills pushed them to default: auto loans, credit card rates and fees, personal loans, revolving store credit accounts... to say nothing of the reduction to home values, at least on those which are, in desperation, left to go into foreclosure, which value is often now the only nest egg many Americans have. Every REO home brought to market, I understand, drives the value of all the other homes in a neighborhood down by several percent. That translates into thousands of dollars loss for any homeowner who needs to sell.
You know my feelings on this mandate, Proud. I think the only real long-term solution to the health care crisis facing America is single-payer, but I am both appreciating and at the same time saddened by the irony right along here with you.
Oh, the Irony - Lead Plaintiff In Health Care Case Files Bankruptcy Due To Medical Bills!
ProudProgressive
2012/03/10 16:32:45
Oh, the delicious irony. As everyone is aware, a class action lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law is currently awaiting oral argument before the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are arguing that the so-called mandate provisions, which provide for a penalty to be paid if someone does not obtain health insurance, violates their rights. On the other side, it is pointed out that skyrocketing medical costs for the uninsured are one of the chief reasons for individual bankruptcy filings. Well the lead plaintiff in the case, Mary Brown, seems to have proven the Act's defenders right. She was forced to file for bankruptcy this week after thousands of dollars in medical bills she incurred because of her refusal to obtain health insurance became too much to deal with.
There seems little real chance that even this Supreme Court will strike down the HRA. Even many leading conservative Judges have gone on record affirming the Act's constitutionality. But the plaintiffs have now handed the Court yet another example of the need to "promote the general welfare", as the Constitution says our government should.
Article excerpt follows:
Lead Plaintiff In Health Care Reform Suit Files For Bankruptcy With Medical Debt
By Annie-Rose Strasser
Mar 9, 2012 at 11:30 am
The lead plaintiff in the legal case against the Affordable Care Act filed for bankruptcy after accruing nearly $5,000 in medical debt. According to the Los Angeles Times, plaintiff Mary Brown was uninsured last fall when her husband's medical bills stacked up to $4,500. That, combined with other debt they had accumulated, led the couple to file for bankruptcy:
Brown, reached by telephone Thursday, said the medical bills were her husband's. "I always paid my bills, as well as my medical bills," she said angrily. "I never said medical insurance is not a necessity. It should be anyone's right to what kind of health insurance they have.
"I believe that anyone has unforeseen things that happen to them that are beyond their control," Brown said. "Who says I don't have insurance right now?"
Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," according to Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business.
Brown may be focused on health care choices, but American taxpayers have another concern. Sixty-two percent of people who file for personal bankruptcy do so because of medical bills, placing those debt burdens on the American taxpayer. And while Brown's husband may have run up his medical bills, others take the less medically responsible road and decline preventive treatment so they can avoid high medical bills in the short term (but risk more problems later).
Other opponents of the Affordable Care Act may argue for a consumer-driven market on health care plans, the fact is that the plans people chose, or their choice not to have one, effects everyone. The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, may already be slowing health care costs.
There seems little real chance that even this Supreme Court will strike down the HRA. Even many leading conservative Judges have gone on record affirming the Act's constitutionality. But the plaintiffs have now handed the Court yet another example of the need to "promote the general welfare", as the Constitution says our government should.
Article excerpt follows:
Lead Plaintiff In Health Care Reform Suit Files For Bankruptcy With Medical Debt
By Annie-Rose Strasser
Mar 9, 2012 at 11:30 am
The lead plaintiff in the legal case against the Affordable Care Act filed for bankruptcy after accruing nearly $5,000 in medical debt. According to the Los Angeles Times, plaintiff Mary Brown was uninsured last fall when her husband's medical bills stacked up to $4,500. That, combined with other debt they had accumulated, led the couple to file for bankruptcy:
Brown, reached by telephone Thursday, said the medical bills were her husband's. "I always paid my bills, as well as my medical bills," she said angrily. "I never said medical insurance is not a necessity. It should be anyone's right to what kind of health insurance they have.
"I believe that anyone has unforeseen things that happen to them that are beyond their control," Brown said. "Who says I don't have insurance right now?"
Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," according to Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business.
Brown may be focused on health care choices, but American taxpayers have another concern. Sixty-two percent of people who file for personal bankruptcy do so because of medical bills, placing those debt burdens on the American taxpayer. And while Brown's husband may have run up his medical bills, others take the less medically responsible road and decline preventive treatment so they can avoid high medical bills in the short term (but risk more problems later).
Other opponents of the Affordable Care Act may argue for a consumer-driven market on health care plans, the fact is that the plans people chose, or their choice not to have one, effects everyone. The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, may already be slowing health care costs.
Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/09/441386/...
Top Opinion
-
Philo-Publius 2012/03/10 17:15:28
are at the bottom of the socio-economic strata in the U.S. and not representative of the educated and middle class population that pay the taxes to support the medical benefits provided by Medicare, Medicaid and such programs. The pleading lawyers found her and used her as a straw plaintiff so they could make their "class action" numbers. Sicko lawyers, screwed up Browns.
Now the tax payers will get stuck with her portion of the medical bills after they are reduced for a payoff!
How typical of the Conservatives!
An article here said that even though HIV meds are available and free, it is not under control because people are just too lazy to even take the free stuff. I can't stand this kind of garbage, irresponsibility is how we got here in the first place. this does not include the innocents who get sick through no fault of their own. they are the ones who should be getting free care. Why do you exonerate all contributive behavior?
These guys are just jacking up the rates ahead of schedule. With one insurer the rates have gone up 29% to 36% over the last few years and the politicians have been too timid to seriously investigate.
"California health insurers to raise average rates 8% to 14%"
http://articles.latimes.com/p...
"The full accounting of the bill is $2.6 trillion. That's a fair and accurate analysis of what the bill would cost, according to CBO, looks like they lied to you again and you bought it hook line and sinker.
In Fact, CBO Projected ACA's Coverage Provisions Will Actually Cost Less Than Previously Estimated
CBO: Insurance Coverage Provisions Will Be "About $50 Billion Less Than" Previous Estimate. In the March 13 companion blog to CBO's 2012 estimate of PPACA's insurance coverage provisions, CBO reported:
The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011
CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.
[...]
Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher
The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions -- $1,496 billion through 2021 -- is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO's and JCT's estimates -- to $413 billion -- leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.
Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last M...
In Fact, CBO Projected ACA's Coverage Provisions Will Actually Cost Less Than Previously Estimated
CBO: Insurance Coverage Provisions Will Be "About $50 Billion Less Than" Previous Estimate. In the March 13 companion blog to CBO's 2012 estimate of PPACA's insurance coverage provisions, CBO reported:
The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011
CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.
[...]
Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher
The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions -- $1,496 billion through 2021 -- is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO's and JCT's estimates -- to $413 billion -- leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.
Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion. [CBO, 3/13/12, emphasis in original]
Reuters: "The Estimated Costs" Of ACA's Insurance Coverage "Have Been Reduced By $48 Billion Through 2021." From a March 13 Reuters article:
The estimated net costs of expanding healthcare coverage under President Barack Obama's landmark restructuring have been reduced by $48 billion through 2021, though fewer people would be covered under private insurance plans, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed on Tuesday.
[...]
By reducing the estimated net 2012-2021 costs to $1.083 trillion from $1.131 trillion a year ago, the CBO report could help Democrats blunt some of the criticism over the high costs of extending coverage to some 47 million uninsured Americans, as they try to tout savings elsewhere in the law.
These cost reductions are largely due to lower estimates for subsidies and tax credits associated with the law's planned insurance exchanges for individual coverage. [Reuters, 3/13/12]
CBSNews.com: "CBO Lowers Health Reform Cost Estimate." A March 14 CBSNews.com article noted:
Congressional economists are estimating somewhat lower costs for covering the uninsured under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, as well as slightly fewer people gaining coverage.
Assuming the Supreme Court does not overturn the law, the Congressional Budget Office would reduce the number of uninsured by 30 million in 2016, or 2 million fewer people than estimated last year. Total costs from 2012-2021 are about $50 billion lower than estimated last year. That's due to a combination of factors, including overall health care costs rising more slowly than in the recent past. [CBSNews.com, 3/14/12]
New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Cohn: "No, Obamacare's Cost Didn't Just Double." In a March 15 post on The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn wrote:
If CBO had truly determined that health care reform's cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.
[...]
In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion -- the one in the press releases and the Fox story.
But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It's only slightly more money than the previous year's outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don't start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.
[...]
The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.[The New Republic, 3/15/12]
Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The Cost Of Obamacare Has Gone Down, Not Up." In a March 15 Mother Jones post, Kevin Drum wrote:
Republicans rushed to the microphones today to announce that new projections show that Obamacare will break the bank. In fact, says Fox News, a CBO reports says that it will cost "twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag."
You will be unsurprised to learn that this is not true.
[...]
As Table 1 shows, if you compare the original 2012-21 time period, CBO's new estimate of the cost of Obamacare is $48 billion less than it was last year. (The report estimates only the cost of expanded insurance coverage under Obamacare, not the entire set of costs and revenues. So the total impact on the deficit hasn't yet been updated.) [Mother Jones, 3/15/12]
Klein: CBO Report "Shows The Net Cost Of The Coverage Provisions Will Be About $50 Billion Less Than Previously Estimated." In a March 15 post on The Washington Post's Wonkblog, Ezra Klein noted that those claiming PPACA costs will increase "didn't read this analysis closely." From The Washington Post:
You'll notice something about the above list: It appears to add up to a net reduction in the cost of the health-care law. And, sure enough, here's CBO: "the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period--about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate." You would get the opposite impression reading Ransom.
[...]
But those other parts of the bill aren't a secret. They're mentioned right there in the analysis. Quoting again: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."
It's easy to do at least some of the update ourselves. This analysis shows the net cost of the coverage provisions will be about $50 billion less than previously estimated. That implies the law will cut more, not less, from the deficit than previous estimates suggested. In other words, this estimate says the bill is more, not less, fiscally responsible than was previously reported.[The Washington Post, 3/15/12]
Insurance is too expensive, in large part because medical care is too expensive. But until that can be fixed, it is all the more imperative that everyone be covered.
You know my feelings on this mandate, Proud. I think the only real long-term solution to the health care crisis facing America is single-payer, but I am both appreciating and at the same time saddened by the irony right along here with you.
http://opinion.latimes.com/op...
Wrong again. It's true that the husband's business closed - whether that was due to the Bush Recession or simply because he was a bad businessman is undetermined. Businesses DO go out of business even in the best economies. But it's just as true that since the business closed neither Brown nor her husband have gotten JOBS, nor did they go out and get individual health insurance.
And you know, the ultimate hypocrisy is that this woman who claims she doesn't want the government on her back is now using the government to avoid paying her own bills. Thanks to the government that she hates so much you and I are now going to have to pay her medical bills. And all of this while she just sits at home and collects unemployment checks from the same government that she wants off her back.
I can well understand why Brown and others who oppose the Health Care Reform Law feel the way they do - why would anyone want to take personal responsibility for their own obligations when they can just sit back and let the taxpayers cover thei...
http://opinion.latimes.com/op...
Wrong again. It's true that the husband's business closed - whether that was due to the Bush Recession or simply because he was a bad businessman is undetermined. Businesses DO go out of business even in the best economies. But it's just as true that since the business closed neither Brown nor her husband have gotten JOBS, nor did they go out and get individual health insurance.
And you know, the ultimate hypocrisy is that this woman who claims she doesn't want the government on her back is now using the government to avoid paying her own bills. Thanks to the government that she hates so much you and I are now going to have to pay her medical bills. And all of this while she just sits at home and collects unemployment checks from the same government that she wants off her back.
I can well understand why Brown and others who oppose the Health Care Reform Law feel the way they do - why would anyone want to take personal responsibility for their own obligations when they can just sit back and let the taxpayers cover their bills? Why should they go out and get jobs that provide health care insurance when they can just sit at home and collect government checks?
If their business would not have folded due to a lack of economic recovery over the last 3 years there would not have been a problem. I'm sure their bills were funneled through the business. The business is bankrupt along with any and all liabilities that go along with it