• Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    That sounds great, but I don’t understand how they can do that if the debt isn’t to the US government.

    The way I understand it, is you owe the hospital money, and after you default, they sell your debt to debt collectors for pennies on the dollar, and then the collectors “own” your debt and harass you and ruin your credit score until you pay.

    How does the government have any say on clearing that debt? With the student loan forgiveness, the debt was owned by the federal government, so they can choose to forgive it.

    • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The bill doesn’t really “cancel” any debt, it establishes a grant fund with tax money and allows people to apply for grants they then use to pay off their medical debts.

      Rather than telling the debt holders to pound sand, the federal government will front you the cash to pay the debt holder.

      • Jajcus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Understood: the debts can get higher now, as the government will pay it…

        I don’t think this is the way to go. Not while getting into medical debt like that is still a possibility.

        • rottingleaf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, that’s how demand works.

          The way to drastically reduce medical expenses and thus debt is deregulating health.

          From what I remember, you need to have quite a lot of things to become a doctor in the USA, even more to run a related business, and most of those are not about education. So the “supply” here is relatively low.

          Also to make education (including medical education, which means - supply again) more affordable the government should just stop subsidizing student loans.

          It may have some fixed sum per student allocated, which may be paid for a place, which can be awarded to students from poorer families or something. The “fixed” and “paid for a whole place” parts are important, otherwise this will work just like subsidizing loans - by inflating prices further.

          • brenstar@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            Ah yes, just what the healthcare industry needs, LESS regulation. That’ll keep those for profit companies from gouging people for the life saving measures they need to not die.

            • rottingleaf
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Now they are using regulations so that you wouldn’t have choice.

              • brenstar@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yes, corporate lobbying is a huge problem here and is often used as a weapon to stifle competition and increase profits. At times it’s hard to remember what regulations are meant to do: Protect People from Corporations

                We don’t need to remove regulations, we need to improve them.

                • rottingleaf
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  At times it’s hard to remember what regulations are meant to do: Protect People from Corporations

                  Historically they were introduced to protect corporations from people. Well, sometimes some collective interests from other collective interests.

                  We don’t need to remove regulations, we need to improve them.

                  It’s an arms race, and one side has more resources than the other.

    • BoofStroke@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If they can afford to sell debt for pennies on the dollar to a debt collector, then why is the bill so high to begin with? Settle with me directly at the same rate. Better yet, get all of this cost and third party network crap out of healthcare entirely.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Two prominent progressive lawmakers, the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and California congressman Ro Khanna, revealed on Wednesday a new bill aimed at eliminating medical debt.

    Now, as the chair of the Senate health, education, labor, and pensions (Help) committee, Sanders has worked with Khanna for over a year to introduce a bill that could make his campaign promise a reality.

    According to a separate study published in the journal Health Affairs in 2016, approximately one-third of cancer survivors had gone into debt as a result of their diagnoses, and 3% had filed for bankruptcy.

    “I’ve met people who say they’re just resigned to having this debt ruin their credit, and they don’t pay it, but they have this kind of harassment and anxiety while they’re dealing with a chronic condition like cancer or diabetes,” Khanna said.

    Sanders and Khanna’s bill may face a difficult journey to passage in the Republican-controlled House, but polls suggest that cancelation of medical debt attracts widespread support from members of both parties.

    According to a March survey conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, Joe Biden continues to lead Donald Trump among likely voters under 30, but just 44% of the president’s young supporters say they enthusiastically back their candidate.


    The original article contains 792 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!