No post body was provided.
Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
21–30 of 381 posts
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#22Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#23Quoted post unavailable.
In TFA:
"A quarter of adults with health care debt owe more than $5,000."
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame the senator from West Virginia who refused to vote on some of the Dems bills.
Blame Democrats for the college educated urban-dominated coalition they’ve deliberately chosen. I recall some activist types talking a few years ago about whether pro life Dems like Manchin should be kicked out of the party. Though it’s the House not the Senate, Dems just lost a longtime majority-Hispanic seat in south Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-electi... . To give you an idea of the…
The Dems might have had 60 seats in name only, but even that was for a few months (Jul 2009 to Jan 2010). More importantly, a couple Democrats like Lieberman do not tow the party line, and frequently vote like Repubs, so I would not say Democrats ever had 60 seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elec...
> Democrats held at least 57 seats as a result of the election. When the new senators were first sworn in, the balance was 58–41 in favor of the Democrats, with the unresolved election in Minnesota causing that seat to remain vacant. The April 2009 party switch of Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter from Republican to Democrat and the July 2009 resolution of the Minnesota election in favor of Democrat Al Franken increased the Democratic majority to 60–40 (providing the Democrats, including the two Independent senators who caucus with them, a supermajority and thus able to hypothetically over-ride any filibusters). Republicans gained a seat in a January 2010 special election in Massachusetts, thereby making the balance 59–41 before the start of the next election cycle.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#25Defining the problem so broadly makes it less likely that it will be solved. We already have high inflation in part because of high government transfers during the pandemic, and handing out money to 100M people with medical debt or student loan debt would aggravate this.
I find it odd that when talking about inflation or moral hazard people bring up money spent given to individuals but not about the trillions spent given to businesses. I think it is immoral for a country as wealthy as the United States to have so many people with medical debt. There should be universal, almost free healthcare. The moral imperative is far more important to me than considerations about inflation.
I dislike adding morals into this discussion. However, there is a real question of whether society in its current state can, in fact, function well. I personally would argue that right now society is very dysfunctional and that dysfunction is primarily benefiting those at the top. And the usual issue with dysfunctional societies is that they tend to fall apart. Now, reasonable person would argue that would not be a good thing even for those on the top of the pile, but clearly no one is scared enough yet.
All I want is balance. That societal balance does not exist now. Hence the tension that seems to be increasing.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#26Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#27Quoted post unavailable.
> I’m assuming
Out of interest, could you elaborate on why you assume you are in the mode, rather than one end of the bell curve?
The stereotype of the US medical industry means that a lot of us would assume you are one of the lucky few.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#28Quoted post unavailable.
Why would you make that assumption?
Edit: By "that assumption", I mean that the portion of the number made up of people who only owe a few bucks and only briefly is significant enough to call for a dismissive attitude.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#29Quoted post unavailable.
In TFA: "A quarter of adults with health care debt owe more than $5,000."
Again, I “owed” that when my kid was born. Deductible plus co-insurance added up to about that.
Not saying some people don’t have “bad” medical debt (they can’t repay) but to lump in all debt as “bad” is silly.
Edit: Oh, it's a poll. Similar to the poll that said "Households earnings more than $250,000 are stuggling financially".
I mean, it's a poll? Did you expect people to say "nah, I have medical debt but I can handle it no problem".
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Milton Friedman famously said: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”
We have a housing crisis and an energy crisis. There's absolutely no need to drag monetary theory in when the outcome is due to failed industrial policy.
Why can't it be all three? I understand that it is easier to sell it as a specific political problem, but I am genuinely tired of arguing partial inflation problem, because discussing it as a whole undermines some political angle.