Anyone who owes $5 or more in outstanding medical bill is counted as part of 1/3rd of country. Really? How about year-long debt or 30-60-90 day breakout chart by amount?
No post body was provided.
Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
61–70 of 381 posts
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ha…
If you could or did pay it off then you wouldn't have been counted in the survey.
Well, no. You certainly could be someone who *could* pay it off but chooses not to for a variety of reasons. Many otherwise financially people I know carry some credit card debt.
Now is that a large portion of people? I have no clue, and my anecdotal evidence certainly isn’t qualified to answer the question.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#63Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, both Manchin and Sinema self-identify as democracts, which some argue is all you really need these days. More importantly to me, however, if we rely on actions and not words, they consciously elect to remain members of Democractic party ( as opposed to say.. being Republican, Independent, Green or whatever ). For all practical reporting purposes, they are Democracts. The moment you apply 'but they voted for X', y…
Context matters. The original post I replied to was admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare, specifically with a taxpayer funded option. The reality is that Democrats, as a bloc, are the only ones to have even attempted taxpayer funded healthcare, and somewhat succeeded. Just because a couple people who label themselves Democrats, but do not vote with them does not make sense to blame Demo…
> admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare
Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 48 Democrat Sentors and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, one of whom has sought the Democratic nomination for President. That’s 50 votes, plus the Democratic VP to break any tie. While it might be correct to say the Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate, its not incorrect to say they do control the Senate.
unless you want to delete the philibuster, that's a long way from the 60 votes you need.
I'm not talking about passing anything, just taking down a vote of who is actually for and against Medicare for All.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should Senate control not be considered 60 votes, if that is what is needed to accomplish the legislation in question?
I think, because, in theory at least[1], simple majority in Senate is all that you should need to pass a bill. To the best of my understanding, 60 is just for being filibuster-proof. Your question is qualified enough to relate specifically to the bill listed by OP, but, again in theory, if the bill wasn't so off-putting that senators decided to filibuster, maybe it would pass. In other words, 60 is not control; 60 is…
I agree with your characterization. I supposed we will see more support of getting rid of filibusters via “nuclear option” as the bipartisanship gets less and less likely.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Context matters. The original post I replied to was admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare, specifically with a taxpayer funded option. The reality is that Democrats, as a bloc, are the only ones to have even attempted taxpayer funded healthcare, and somewhat succeeded. Just because a couple people who label themselves Democrats, but do not vote with them does not make sense to blame Demo…
> admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
Democrats would not be able to bring a vote without 60 votes, or without using the nuclear option to rid the filibuster.
Which would burn a lot of political good will for no reason, considering the likelihood of how Sinema and Manchin would vote.
The point being that evidence points to Democrats by and large supporting taxpayer funded healthcare options. It specifically was removed in 2009 from ACA because of 1 senator from Connecticut.
Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#68Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#69Re: Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
Democrats would not be able to bring a vote without 60 votes, or without using the nuclear option to rid the filibuster. Which would burn a lot of political good will for no reason, considering the likelihood of how Sinema and Manchin would vote. The point being that evidence points to Democrats by and large supporting taxpayer funded healthcare options. It specifically was removed in 2009 from ACA because of 1 senat…
Let's get a vote in the House to see where everyone actually stands. My point is that the Democrat majority seems to be against Medicare for All, and I want to see it in a vote.
It's not really fair to pin Lieberman's opposition to the public option or expanding Medicare as some personal opinion, he had previously supported expanding Medicare until he abruptly... got new orders? Seems like the the $930,000 in bribes he accepted from the health industry could have played a role:
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?c...
And the major force against universal healthcare, since FDR's Second Bill of Rights (right to health), has always been the AMA:
https://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/12/ama_opposition_to_oba...