Another serious question for the pros here - medical related

[L.T. Fan]

Comparing our position to socialism is disingenuous and equivalent to name calling, so we're even.

My response was directed at K Brown not your position. You are getting riled because someone disagrees with you.

 

[NoDak]

You are a prime candidate for socialism..

 

[L.T. Fan]

It was a sarcastic response to a sarcastic remark.

 

[NoDak]

It was a sarcastic response to a sarcastic remark.

Yes, I believe his comment was sarcasm. Yours, not so much.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Yes, I believe his comment was sarcasm. Yours, not so much.

Fine. It's your option.

 

[NoDak]

Fine. It's your option.

Well, thank goodness I have your ok to express an opinion.

 

[Cotton]

Its not socialism doucheface.

No one is forcibly redistributing assets here. The plain facts which you can't seem to grasp is that there is no moral obligation to pay those outrageous bills. The hospital is a for-profit capitalistic enterprise and in a capitalist system they bear the risk of non payment when the services they extend can't be paid for. This is especially the case given the fact that they have no ethical high ground to stand on given their outrageous billing practices.

Its not socialism any more than letting the big banks fail would have been socialism. They fucked up on their own through their greedy practices. Consumers have a legal and constitutionally-established way out of the mess, and it is not in the slightest any moral failing on their part to choose that way out.

I think everyone agrees people should "meet their obligations." Paying usurious interest rates or unjustifiable medical bills is not a moral obligation though.

You really should use a comma before a noun of reference.

 

[Kbrown]

You are a prime candidate for socialism.

I don't know what this means. I am the Socialist party's choice for President? I am eligible for more benefits? If so, then yes please.

In seriousness, though, I am a localist conservative by political leanings. But the idea that anyone is some immoral deadbeat who doesn't put their family into a bread line to play along with our corrupt, bloated healthcare system for the sake of receiving life-saving medical treatment is a complete farce to me.

 

[Deuce]

Lets also not forget, the Lender's have the choice to challenge anything that comes up in a bankruptcy hearing. Now, maybe its cause it wasn't $100k that I was dealing with and that's small change to them, but not one Lender challenged any part of our case. Made it a nice and easy process. But if they felt as strongly as LT does and that they were the ones being wronged in this process, they could have taken matters into their own hands. Since they didn't (and often times don't), don't complain to me about someone else using this method.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I don't know what this means. I am the Socialist party's choice for President? I am eligible for more benefits? If so, then yes please.

In seriousness, though, I am a localist conservative by political leanings. But the idea that anyone is some immoral deadbeat who doesn't put their family into a bread line to play along with our corrupt, bloated healthcare system for the sake of receiving life-saving medical treatment is a complete farce to me.

Well I happen to agree with you. I believe I indicated there were justifiable reasons for doing things including bankruptcy as a remedy. I never depicted anyone as a deadbeat in fact the only thing I said was everyone should be responsible and try to work things out first before you resorted to other measures that could leave a negative connotations. I didn't bring up the health system or comment on it's ethics at all. That was dialogue from others. My remarks to you was in the same sarcastic vain as your comment was which was directed at me. All the other hullabaloo including diatribes about the banking system was thrown by others as well. Nothing in what I said about anyone was a disparaging remark except the return slam to you.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Lets also not forget, the Lender's have the choice to challenge anything that comes up in a bankruptcy hearing. Now, maybe its cause it wasn't $100k that I was dealing with and that's small change to them, but not one Lender challenged any part of our case. Made it a nice and easy process. But if they felt as strongly as LT does and that they were the ones being wronged in this process, they could have taken matters into their own hands. Since they didn't (and often times don't), don't complain to me about someone else using this method.

The only thing I feel strongly about is for anyone to take responsibility first to the extent they can before they resort to other measures. That's it in a nutshell. I don't see what is so damming about that.

 

[Smitty]

Well I happen to agree with you. I believe I indicated there were justifiable reasons for doing things including bankruptcy as a remedy. I never depicted anyone as a deadbeat in fact the only thing I said was everyone should be responsible and try to work things out first before you resorted to other measures that could leave a negative connotations. I didn't bring up the health system or comment on it's ethics at all. That was dialogue from others. My remarks to you was in the same sarcastic vain as your comment was which was directed at me. All the other hullabaloo including diatribes about the banking system was thrown by others as well. Nothing in what I said about anyone was a disparaging remark except the return slam to you.

When bankruptcy was suggested, you implied taking that course of action as anything but an absolute last resort is an act of personal irresponsibility.

You're pretty much alone on that island.

Quite to the contrary to your position, it is completely acceptable to do as Deuce did and file for the financial health of his family. He shouldn't be shamed into spending any amount of effort at all into scraping and struggling and making his family suffer to make ends meet to pay back those debts, not even for a single day, if he doesn't want to.

His only obligation is that he should not be able to keep significant assets and still wipe out creditors. And the bankruptcy code makes well certain that is the case. Abiding by these laws is all the responsibility anyone needs to consider.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Get off it Schmidtty. You only perceived what you think I implied. I haven't stated anything about whether anyone should or should not file bankruptcy. Quite the contrary, I said the first approach is to try to take care of the obligation yourself if at all possible. Any order of subsequent remedies wasn't part my position. I also indicated that bankruptcy was an option just not the first one. My position on it is that you take that avenue only if there isn't any other way but I didn't say or imply irresponsibility. You are apparently taking that personally because that is what you indicated you practice. Don't read things into the commentary that aren't there.

 

[Deuce]

His only obligation is that he should not be able to keep significant assets and still wipe out creditors. And the bankruptcy code makes well certain that is the case. Abiding by these laws is all the responsibility anyone needs to consider.

Honestly, the only effect it's had on me is my credit for about a 2 year period. I didn't lose my house, my cars, any personal property from within the home and I didn't own any property outside of it. That's one of the reasons we jumped at the chance to file. Maybe it' cause we were lucky to be a small time case or we just had a good attorney, but it was relatively painless.

 

[BipolarFuk]

poor people in Texas usually make token payments until the hospital writes off the debt.

This is the only advice in this thread you need, Carl.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Doctors and insurance companies. Pretty much scum of the earth. Both of them.

Why did you leave out the personal injury attorneys screaming nonstop from their mansions for victims to call them and "get what they deserve"...

 

[L.T. Fan]

Why did you leave out the personal injury attorneys screaming nonstop from their mansions for victims to call them and "get what they deserve"...

You mean like "Call Saul"?

 

[Smitty]

Get off it Schmidtty. You only perceived what you think I implied. I haven't stated anything about whether anyone should or should not file bankruptcy. Quite the contrary, I said the first approach is to try to take care of the obligation yourself if at all possible. Any order of subsequent remedies wasn't part my position. I also indicated that bankruptcy was an option just not the first one. My position on it is that you take that avenue only if there isn't any other way but I didn't say or imply irresponsibility. You are apparently taking that personally because that is what you indicated you practice. Don't read things into the commentary that aren't there.

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying your position. I guess this take means there was zero reason for you to bring up personal responsibility then (which you did).

Glad to see that's not your opinion, because it would be the opinion of a moron. Good thing that's not you.

Because the truth is, it is not in one bit irresponsible to look to bankruptcy as a first recourse if you know paying will be a hardship.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying your position. I guess this take means there was zero reason for you to bring up personal responsibility then (which you did).

Glad to see that's not your opinion, because it would be the opinion of a moron. Good thing that's not you.

Because the truth is, it is not in one bit irresponsible to look to bankruptcy as a first recourse if you know paying will be a hardship.

If that's how you feel ,fine. If someone has a different view they are not a moron but that is always your approach. Any view that is different than yours is invalid and moronic. You have built a reputation espousing that jargon.

 

[Cotton]

Why did you leave out the personal injury attorneys screaming nonstop from their mansions for victims to call them and "get what they deserve"...

I didn't want to offend pep.