Sen. Bernie Sanders told CBS News he's "very disappointed" by the bill to end the government shutdown, calling a planned vote on health insurance subsidies "meaningless."
No, there is no practical, immediate, and acceptable alternative available.
You just go, accept the debt, and eventually file bankruptcy.
That’s not really a viable option for most people in the USA.
Bankruptcy in the USA is expensive in and of itself, comes with a lot of limitations, and still requires you to sell your property (if you’re wealthy) or continue to pay off the debt (if you’re working class). No way I can cover all the cons and reasons that’s not an option for most people, but basically it’s a huge gamble and is liable to leave you in a worse off financial situation than if you’d just maintained insurance.
Also, most people’s medical care comes from primary care, urgent care, pharmacies (i.e. non-emergency care). These are places where you pay up front or you don’t get service / prescriptions / care – particularly if you are uninsured. These places do not have to provide service if you can’t pay.
For emergency room care, there is a minimum standard of care that they must provide regardless of ability to pay, but it’s (hand waving here) basically just patch you up enough to temporarily stabilize you so you can be pushed out the door. Overwhelmingly, people who’ve been to the emergency room require follow-up care (not provided by the emergency room), and that follow-up care is similarly pay up front or no service. The emergency room also isn’t going to manage all the routine stuff unless/until it’s at a life altering point, and if you wait that long to get treatment for those types of things, you pretty much always end up much worse off in the long run.
So again, this is not really an option for most people or most ailments.
I think that’s largely true, but aren’t you skipping the idea of a chapter 13 (is it?). I thought there was a major difference between chapter 7 and 13, being that you aren’t required to pay anything back. You may still have to forfeit some assets, but you can also keep assets like a car so long as you can prove you’re making payments and you need it. Also consider, the people who can’t afford insurance and would thus take this option probably don’t have much in the first place. I’m not a lawyer though, what are your thoughts?
Keep in mind the context of this conversation is “What if all American’s cancel their insurance.”
Although the premise of this conversation is regarding all Americans, cancelling insurance is only relevant to the subgroup of people who are currently paying for insurance. That excludes a huge chunk of the population right off the bat, including the people you mentioned who can’t afford insurance (but also don’t qualify for other options like Medicaid). There’s nothing for them to cancel because they are already uninsured, they don’t play much of a role in affecting change in this scenario.
On the topic of bankruptcy, the differences between the options isn’t super important in this context. The majority of people filing for bankruptcy don’t get their debt wiped for free, it’s still a costly and risky option to rely on, and it’s far from being a practical, immediate, and acceptable alternative to maintaining health insurance. Would relying on bankruptcy work for a single person, relatively healthy, with no kids or dependents, few or no assets and low income? Sure. Does that work for the majority of people, who have dependents and/or health issues, own things, and make a typical income, no not really.
No, there is no practical, immediate, and acceptable alternative available.
That’s not really a viable option for most people in the USA.
Bankruptcy in the USA is expensive in and of itself, comes with a lot of limitations, and still requires you to sell your property (if you’re wealthy) or continue to pay off the debt (if you’re working class). No way I can cover all the cons and reasons that’s not an option for most people, but basically it’s a huge gamble and is liable to leave you in a worse off financial situation than if you’d just maintained insurance.
Also, most people’s medical care comes from primary care, urgent care, pharmacies (i.e. non-emergency care). These are places where you pay up front or you don’t get service / prescriptions / care – particularly if you are uninsured. These places do not have to provide service if you can’t pay.
For emergency room care, there is a minimum standard of care that they must provide regardless of ability to pay, but it’s (hand waving here) basically just patch you up enough to temporarily stabilize you so you can be pushed out the door. Overwhelmingly, people who’ve been to the emergency room require follow-up care (not provided by the emergency room), and that follow-up care is similarly pay up front or no service. The emergency room also isn’t going to manage all the routine stuff unless/until it’s at a life altering point, and if you wait that long to get treatment for those types of things, you pretty much always end up much worse off in the long run.
So again, this is not really an option for most people or most ailments.
I think that’s largely true, but aren’t you skipping the idea of a chapter 13 (is it?). I thought there was a major difference between chapter 7 and 13, being that you aren’t required to pay anything back. You may still have to forfeit some assets, but you can also keep assets like a car so long as you can prove you’re making payments and you need it. Also consider, the people who can’t afford insurance and would thus take this option probably don’t have much in the first place. I’m not a lawyer though, what are your thoughts?
Keep in mind the context of this conversation is “What if all American’s cancel their insurance.”
Although the premise of this conversation is regarding all Americans, cancelling insurance is only relevant to the subgroup of people who are currently paying for insurance. That excludes a huge chunk of the population right off the bat, including the people you mentioned who can’t afford insurance (but also don’t qualify for other options like Medicaid). There’s nothing for them to cancel because they are already uninsured, they don’t play much of a role in affecting change in this scenario.
On the topic of bankruptcy, the differences between the options isn’t super important in this context. The majority of people filing for bankruptcy don’t get their debt wiped for free, it’s still a costly and risky option to rely on, and it’s far from being a practical, immediate, and acceptable alternative to maintaining health insurance. Would relying on bankruptcy work for a single person, relatively healthy, with no kids or dependents, few or no assets and low income? Sure. Does that work for the majority of people, who have dependents and/or health issues, own things, and make a typical income, no not really.