Woman challenging Obamacare goes bankrupt - due to medical bills

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
This was posted in the poligaf thread, but this story's just too awesome not to share:

Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because she was passionate about the issue.

Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month.

But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address.

"This is so ironic," Jane Perkins, a health law expert in North Carolina, said of Brown's situation. "It just shows that all Americans inevitably have a need for healthcare. Somebody has paid for her healthcare costs. And she is now among the 62% whose personal bankruptcy was attributable in part to medical bills."


Brown, reached by telephone Thursday, said the medical bills were her husband's. "I always paid my bills, as well as my medical bills," she said angrily. "I never said medical insurance is not a necessity. It should be anyone's right to what kind of health insurance they have.

"I believe that anyone has unforeseen things that happen to them that are beyond their control," Brown said. "Who says I don't have insurance right now?"

In August, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed. Florida and 25 other states were suing, but they needed an individual to contest the mandate. "Mary Brown has standing to challenge the individual mandate," the judges said, and "as long as at least one plaintiff has standing to raise" the claim, the court can rule. The Obama administration appealed, and the Supreme Court said in November it would decide the constitutional challenge.

As if all this isn't delicious enough, here's the icing:

But by then, Brown's small auto repair shop near Panama City, Fla., had closed, and she and her husband had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Brown said in the petition that her only income was $275 a month in unemployment benefits.


Her bankruptcy came to light in December, when a Wall Street Journal reporter interviewed her about her role in the historic case. In a video interview, Brown said freedom from government was the issue. "I'm not fighting just for me," she said. "It's my choice to have healthcare, not theirs."

Shortly afterward, lawyers for the National Federation of Independent Business informed the court of Brown's troubles, and sent along a copy of her bankruptcy filing.

The couple owed $2,140 to Bay Medical Center in Panama City, $610 to Bay Medical Physicians, $835 to an eye doctor in Alabama and $900 to a specialist in Mississippi.

"This is a very common problem. We cover $30 million in charity and uncompensated care every year," said Christa Hild, a spokeswoman for the hospital center. "If it's a bad debt, we have to absorb it."

The business group's lawyers say they weren't backing away from their bankrupt plaintiff. "She wants to continue in the case. And as long as she doesn't want healthcare, she qualifies as a plaintiff in our mind," Harned said.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309,0,6657163.story

There are few things that would better encapsulate the idea of a Tea Partier than this little lady right here. It encompasses the triple threat of righteous indignation, lack of self awareness and warped sense of entitlement. I love it.
 
well, the medicare bill would have forced her to insure herself; it's not like somebody else would have provided the insurance to save her. She's kinda boned both ways.
 
While don't agree with her, as I want a single payor system, I think that ironically, the mandate will make it that much harder to get a single payor system. With more people paying into for-profit insurance companies, there will be more lobbying dollars working against the single payor system. For-profit insurance isn't going to allow a system that simply replaces them.
 
With this, that anti-helmet motorcyclist and that anti-seat belt law guy someone up there sure has a sense of humor.
 
As a Canadian reading this, I'm just baffled by her point of view. We pay a lot of taxes, I hate it sometimes, but recently my dad had to get a large tumour removed from his intestines near his colon. That shit would have bankrupted us if we were in the states with no health insurance.

There needs to be a safety net for certain things, health care is most definitely one of them.
 
While don't agree with her, as I want a single payor system, I think that ironically, the mandate will make it that much harder to get a single payor system. With more people paying into for-profit insurance companies, there will be more lobbying dollars working against the single payor system. For-profit insurance isn't going to allow a system that simply replaces them.

They'd be fighting it tooth and nail either way.

Anyways, I don't really find this funny. It's much more sad and unfortunate.
 
As a Canadian reading this, I'm just baffled by her point of view. We pay a lot of taxes, I hate it sometimes, but recently my dad had to get a large tumour removed from his intestines near his colon. That shit would have bankrupted us if we were in the states with no health insurance.

There needs to be a safety net for certain things, health care is most definitely one of them.

But taxes!! And death panels!!!
 
Anthropologists studying primitive cultures consider one of the clues that a group had established a society to be a healed femur.

Early humans were apparently socialists.
 
I am not one to usually make fun of others who are in a bad situation but this is justice. She was willfully ignorant and she got what was coming to her. There is a reason the rest of the West doesn't have to deal with this shit and it is because the entire notion that you can be in financial ruin because of genetics, a fall, a car accident, some other asshole or a combination of them is not a burden that we have to live with. Karma. That is what you get when you champion a broken system.
 
I hope Obama cites this case every time any question about Obamacare is brought up.

While I wouldn't take it this far, I hope these hardships knocks some sense into her.

I was sorta joking on that last but I'm definitely not shedding any tears over any further hardships she may endure.
 
As a Canadian reading this, I'm just baffled by her point of view. We pay a lot of taxes, I hate it sometimes, but recently my dad had to get a large tumour removed from his intestines near his colon. That shit would have bankrupted us if we were in the states with no health insurance.

There needs to be a safety net for certain things, health care is most definitely one of them.
6km___breaking_bad_ing24kf.jpg
 
well, the medicare bill would have forced her to insure herself; it's not like somebody else would have provided the insurance to save her. She's kinda boned both ways.

I guess the question is: Had she been forced to buy health insurance, would she have racked up the equivalent of her medical bills in fees? We know the bills were, at minimum, $4500.
 
How does a healed femur prove that they were socialists?

How can you predict such a complex behavior from such measly evidence?

A broken femur is difficult to recover from. An individual with such an injury would have to be cared for by the rest of the tribe.

Early humans understood that it's in everyone's best interests to take care of each other's illnesses and injuries.

The socialist part was tongue in cheek.
 
I was about to say $4500 is an awfully small amount to go bankrupt over, but her business went under too. Sounds like she's got more problems than just her medical bills.
 
I guess the question is: Had she been forced to buy health insurance, would she have racked up the equivalent of her medical bills in fees? We know the bills were, at minimum, $4500.

And also depending on her income she may have qualified for expanded Medicaid or insurance subsidies.
 
A broken femur is difficult to recover from. An individual with such an injury would have to be cared for by the rest of the tribe.

Early humans understood that it's in everyone's best interests to take care of each other's illnesses and injuries.

The socialist part was tongue in cheek.

Ah, okay. Forgive my ignorance.
 
Why was the article cut up in the OP without any indication? This paragraph, in particular, was missing from the middle.

Lawyers who represent Brown dispute the significance of her bankruptcy. They say her unpaid medical bills were only a small part of her debts and did not cause her bankruptcy. They say that she and her husband owe $55,000 to others, including credit card companies. And they say her financial troubles were caused by the failure of her auto repair shop.
 
Early humans understood that it's in everyone's best interests to take care of each other's illnesses and injuries.

Is this really the case? Taking care of the sick costs a lot of resources. I thought the reason humans took care of the sick was a byproduct of empathy which has tangible benefits when maneuvering through the social world. From a resource standpoint it isn't in your best interest.
 
I don't understand the resistance to a single payer system.

From some of the figures Gaffers have posted, I would pay much less in taxes for complete coverage at the point of need than most Americans with a private health insurance policy with many restrictions and things like co-pays etc.

In fact, I haven't been taxed for almost 2 years because I've been in part-time employment and don't earn enough to be taxed.

For the last 2 years, I have had completely free health cover.
 
Is this really the case? Taking care of the sick costs a lot of resources. I thought the reason humans took care of the sick was a byproduct of empathy which has tangible benefits when maneuvering through the social world. From a resource standpoint it isn't in your best interest.

I can certainly see an argument for a more healthy group being beneficial in just about every way.
 
I can certainly see an argument for a more healthy group being beneficial in just about every way.

I'm talking about when people were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Pretty much every member had to hunt. Taking care of a sick member who couldn't contribute until months (or however long a broken femur takes to heal) later would be a huge resource drain.

That's quite a bit different than taking care of illnesses that clear up in about a week or two.
 
Is this really the case? Taking care of the sick costs a lot of resources. I thought the reason humans took care of the sick was a byproduct of empathy which has tangible benefits when maneuvering through the social world. From a resource standpoint it isn't in your best interest.

We don't pop out replacements like bunny rabbits. A new human has a nine month gestation period and takes 14-16 years before he/she is useful for anything. Even throwing empathy out the window altogether, it makes sense to use resources to heal your sick and injured.
 
I'm talking about when people were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Pretty much every member had to hunt. Taking care of a sick member who couldn't contribute until weeks/months later would be a huge resource drain.

But allowing them to weaken and possibly die will slow the group and potentially leave it down a member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom