We were discussing people who want nothing to do with insurance...
no, we were discussing people who want nothing to do with the ACA because they most likely had insurance and were happy with it.
ACA includes them too. Transparent competition in exchanges, standards they have to follow, guarantees, annual caps, coverage. ACA is the whole system, dupe.
What part of people that provide for themselves do not want anything to do with the ACA do you have a hard time following.
Before the ACA, everything worked just fine. Good care, reasonable premiums, not deductibles, low co-pay.
People want nothing to do with the ACA. Im responsible and dont need the government to care for me.
18% of GDP, 45k dead/year, millions with pre-existing unable to get insurance, millions forced to quit work to go on welfare to get Medicaid, businesses giving up on care because of cost, 500k people WITH (CRAP) insurance going bankrupt/year. Check out the world beyond the end of your nose sometime.
NOT one of your statements is true!
More importantly where did you get your information? NOT ONE link that I can verify but just your guesses!!!
David Himmelstein and colleagues recently contended that medical problems contribute to 54.5 percent of personal bankruptcies and threaten the solvency of solidly middle-class Americans. They propose comprehensive national health insurance as a solution. A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class. Moreover, for national health insurance to have an impact, it would have to define “medical” expenses in a much broader way than is now typical of either private or government-funded plans.
This response to a widely cited paper by David Himmelstein and colleagues challenges the basis of its conclusions.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth: persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.—President John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at Yale University, 11 June 1962.
Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact
There has been some criticism of the study, along with reports that have echoed, and others that have contradicted, the Harvard findings.
Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego,
took issue with the relatively low level of out-of-pocket costs that could qualify as a cause of a "major medical bankruptcy." In February 2005, she wrote for the
National Review:
Heriot: Buried in the study is the
fact that only 27 percent of the surveyed debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. … Nobody likes to pay $1,000 in medical expenses even when they get two years to do it in, but for most Americans (particularly those with enough at stake to seek the protection of bankruptcy) it is not catastrophic.
In fact, the study said that the out-of-pocket costs cited by those interviewed were "often below levels that are commonly labeled catastrophic." The authors hypothesized that other related factors, such as the loss of a job, helped push families into bankruptcy: "Presumably, such costs were often ruinous because of concomitant income loss or because the need for costly care persisted over several years."
The No-Nonsense Truth About Medical Bankruptcy | GiveForward
