[Kenneth] Hoagland had refinanced his Nashville home to pay off the $25,000 tab for his weeklong diabetes-related stay at Southern Hills Medical Center. The new mortgage left Hoagland out of medical debt but afraid to get sick again. Unfortunately, he did. In 2004, Hoagland was in a health insurance waiting period on a new job when a cold turned into two days at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. This time, the bill was just over $1,200.
When a collection attorney working for Vanderbilt filed suit in 2005, Hoagland was afraid to take time off from work to show up in court. After a series of hearings, attempts to collect the debt and what Hoagland says were genuine efforts to pay it, an attorney working for Vanderbilt asked a judge to issue what’s known as a body attachment.
One Friday in late 2008, a sheriff’s deputy went to Hoagland’s home. Because he was at work, Hoagland was allowed to turn himself in the following Monday.
“They fingerprinted me, took my picture and asked some questions about my medical history,” he said. “When the guy who tested (my blood sugar) asked me why I was there and I told him … he said, ‘I didn’t know we did that in this country.’ I told him, ‘Until now, I didn’t either.’ “
I felt a little sick to my stomach reading the article. Entrenched interests avoid this topic entirely during the “debate” over health care.
Roughly speaking its an arrest warrant for previous failures to appear in court. In this case, after answering a few questions, there should be no further jails. Most states have them.
He was arrested for failure to answer warrants and/or subpoenas. NOT for failing to pay for his health care. This could happen for ANY debt, not just health care. In other words, it has, in the end, nothing to do with health care.
I strongly suspect that his new job was the issue – they wanted to attach his wages and could not find out where he worked, and he refused to appear in court voluntarily, so they asked the judge to have him arrested.
Remember – if you owe someone money, do NOT ignore it. Especially if they then sue you. Otherwise you could end up just like this guy.
#4: True, however it is the screwed up health care system we have that allowed this situation to come about.
Of course this has nothing to do with the healthcare debate….it has more to do with not appearing in court.
The thing that pisses me off is that the Republicans say the system is fine and needs nothing done to it, and the Dems say it needs to be utterly scrapped and rebuilt by the unnacountable bureaucrats who have made our govt such a model of efficiency and common sense.
How about fixing what’s wrong with it (tort reform, portability, pre-existing conditions and subsidies for basic coverage for the poor would solve 90% of the problems)? Oh, sorry, that fits neither with Obama’s demand that our government masters be in complete control or the Republicans’ demand that there be complete freedom from any govt control.
It’s not going to get fixed as long as we see it as this stupid false dilemmna.
#6 Jimmycliff, subsidies for basic coverage for the poor (giving them money to pay their insurance premiums) would mean us giving our tax money to the big insurance companies. Medicaid works for the poor, it’s government run but more efficient than the big insurance companies. It could be expanded to cover more people.
And you’ve been listening to too much right-wing propaganda… Democrats do not really want to have the government in control of everything. Take a deep breath and relax.
#6, jimmy,
the Dems say it needs to be utterly scrapped and rebuilt by the unnacountable bureaucrats who have made our govt such a model of efficiency and common sense.
Or, we could just leave it in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats that are out to make the biggest profit they can for their shareholders.
At least with a public system I can always complain to an elected representative. Can anyone say that with a private system?
Oh, and thanks for that great endorsement of our military.
I have yet to hear anyone explain how “tort reform” will help save anyone from high costs or insure anyone.
I can see how limiting claims will continue to allow bad doctors to continue practicing and leave injured people without relief.
—Take a deep breath and relax.–
Save the snark, it gets old.
Sorry, but you don’t even know what’s in the bill…read it and you’ll see that they do indeed want quite fine control over things, although delivery will be nominally through the same providers. The fine net of “small” requirements will have the same effect as a blatant takeover.
So you’ve read enough Democratic propaganda to “know” that people’s concerns about the plan are groundless. Well, it’s not going to happen until people are at least somewhat comfortable that it WON’T put too much control in the govt’s hands. And even though I voted for him, I’m perfectly willing to admit that he’s lied about nearly everything he said he’d do. I don’t trust him on this either.
It would be nice to see people talk about fixing the worst problems, and yes, expanded Medicare could be a component instead of subsidies….that’s something we ought to actually DISCUSS instead of being told to trust the smart people who know better.
#9 – Tort reform doesn’t necessarily mean scrapping the ability to sue and receive compensation (compensatory damages) for something that a negligent doctor does. I’ve long proposed changing our tort system to alter the punishment part (punitive damages). They have a part to play, but punitive damages should not be awarded to the plaintiff, especially in a system that does not have loser pays (like just about ever other western country besides the US has). Without loser pays and with the possibility of huge punitive damages being awarded to a plaintiff who does not deserve them (again, this is not compensation for loss), there is too much incentive to file lawsuits.
Just change the system so that punitive damages go to the state, and the loser has to pay legal fees (maybe only in certain circumstances and not all), and you reduce or eliminate the frivolous lawsuits and absurd judgments, while keeping a system in place to compensate victims. This doesn’t just apply to doctors and health-care, but to any liability in our country. The punitive damage lottery ticket is why we have such a litigious society.
#10–jimmy==which “the” bill are you talking about? Aren’t there 5 right now? And what link are you using to read “the” bill in such fine detail?
Section number?
Snark Indeed.
When you have a gap in insurance (even if it’s a waiting period) and are already struggling with medical debts and such, why wouldn’t you get stop gap insurance? Pay for COBRA, or get short-term insurance. My husband and I have had to do both before. I’m sorry for this guy, but he did choose to be uninsured.
#1 reason for default on mortgages in the US: health care bills.
Not being an American I have to ask #13: is it relatively easy to get COBRA or ST insurance?
Can no one read? You are making my point about the false dilemmna assuming that if I don’t want the Obamacare model then I want no changes at all. We really could have something in between if everyone weren’t so brainwashed to be Red or Blue.
Military? Don’t follow you at all there. Please don’t tell me you’re saying the military is a paragon of efficiency and common sense. I was in it for twenty years, which is long enough to know better.
And SID, the public system can be just as remote and unmoving as the private sector despite elected officials who pretend to care. AGAIN, read what I actually wrote. I denigrated BOTH total govt control and no govt control.
Done with the whole head against wall thing. You guys have fun arguing with caricatures.
#13-He “chose” to be uninsured? Really?
Have you ever tried to buy a private policy as a diabetic? As Spongebob Squarepants likes to say, “good luck with that”.
#14-It is ruinously expensive or completely impossible for individuals who have preexisting conditions to buy health insurance in the United States
currently the only one under consideration
You guys really are proving the point about the false choice!
Bobbo, “in-between” really is where the best solutions usually lie. Life is not black and white.
Solve the problem of pre-existing conditions and stop having employers be the main source of insurance and you’ve done most of what middle America wants. Put a watchdog agency on the insurance companies’ butts to make sure they pay up and you’ve covered the rest.
Subsidize the poor or move them into Medicare at a higher income level and you’ve fixed 90% of the problems.
But know, Jimmy is right, no one wants to talk about these things, just parrot the Dem and Rep talking points!
Subsidize the poor or mo
Well archy, you are simply wrong. Here’s a sure way to lose: let someone else choose the boundaries of the debate. The inbetween solutions do nothing to reign in healthcare and only funnel additional billions to the inefficient health insurers who siphon it off as bonuses and stockholder returns.
Archy: what is so inherently worthwhile in our system that makes it supportable in view of the only holdout for universal coverage as offered by every other advanced, and even some not so advanced, western nations? You know, its not surprising we are paying twice as much per capita as anyone else and we can’t afford it. Paying the Ins Co’s even MORE money sounds like the solution to our gun violence==get more guns.
What is kinda surprising is that our health outcomes are so poor. Well, not when you realize we have incentivized the withholding of care.
Life is not black and white. /// In what sense? I can think of lots of ways it is exactly black and white, and many more other ways the statement is irrelevant. Life is not black and white so we should choose which healthcare approach?
Middle class america usually can’t afford what it wants—because you know, life isn’t black and white. Putting more money into the system is neither black or white.
Spin the color wheel again.
penguintopia obviously have never experienced chronic illness while being hunted down by the crooks in the medical/justice system. penguintopia, as his name implies, is living in a utopian world of fantasy, not America, I know, I was just like him/her at one time.
He/she states, “He was arrested for failure to answer warrants and/or subpoenas. NOT for failing to pay for his health care. This could happen for ANY debt, not just health care. In other words, it has, in the end, nothing to do with health care”.
Though his reference is technically correct about failure and warrants, the matters of why the guy was hunted down by the system of justice for the creditors, is due to health problems, that’s at it’s core.
My medical debt was $55,000.00 (the 1/3 not covered by insurance) so my wife and I refinanced in 2006. I lost my job in 2008 and she passed away.
Here I am in 2009 waiting for Chapter 7 discharge and the sheriff to evict me.
I fought for this country in a “police action” but it took 37 years to get put this old vet out onto the streets. Nice treatment for those that volunteered to fight in YOUR dirty, nasty war.
Hopefully the clowns here in San Diego are a bit smarter and do not start pissing off their legions. That would detrimental to their health.
—
Please Help Stop Global Whining
#23–HEY ALFIEEEEEEE!!!!! Would you rather be in Canada and be on a one year waiting list “unless your condition worsens and you need immediate care” or in the USA where you have no coverage at all and will NEVER get care?
Me and 45 Million other folks are just wondering.
#22, Seems black and white doesn’t work for you after all! How many times did you tell me that life wasn’t black and white?
Like when you didn’t answer the question on why you would let 10 strangers die to save your wife.
I think this guy has a better idea than a government run health care system… read and think about all the truths in this speech.
‘Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.
Points to consider:
1. No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.
2. If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
3. Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
4. More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
5. Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
6. First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
7. The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
8. Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
9. The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.
Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
10. Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
11. Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
12. The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.
13. The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.
14. Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.
15. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
16. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.’-Ron Paul
>I have yet to hear anyone explain how “tort reform” will help save anyone from high costs or insure anyone.
Well it reduces malpractice insurance premiums, as seen in Texas and other states that have passed tort reform. This in turn increases the supply of doctors who practice, lowering costs there.
In addition, it reduces the amount of defensive medicine which is practiced, lowering demand for services, and reducing costs, and in turn insurance premiums.
Lower insurance premiums means more people buying insurance.
What this shows is that employer based health care is a problem. It’s a good thing that Obama has flip-flopped and is supporting a tax on employer health care that he attacked McCain for proposing.
If you’re getting health care through your job, then you don’t have full health insurance. They should separate the two, and have you buy health insurance personally. This guy would have had no problem if there was no waiting period.
#28–Hey ALFIEEEEE!!!!!!==a’ po[‘pawoej p’awepo kjpdkf ‘a4 ]=24965=49t635t [3ikaf;wlxdmf;p ag
4t-045-395=2
r
}{$#ot
=]3-49t 3-]=49t
]g[
P a=-40tr=-\309y n
|}Pv qa430pt4=3-t05=-06=40o7
=-67
-otv-04ot
][vp
]6py6=-yo[opfkbv;lfmdvpelwjafoiewhraoweiur
Sigh… the libertarians flail about swearing that socialized medicine will never, ever, ever work, it’s absolutely against human nature, John Galt would never approve, blah blah blah…
Meanwhile, every civilized country except the U.S. has some form of socialized medicine, delivering better care at a lower cost than we do in the U.S.
Perhaps they don’t know that other countries exist? Or maybe they think Americans are a different species than the humans in the rest of the world.
Darned if I know.
#34 Lame, LL, very lame. Other civilized countries have free markets and socialized medicine. Get it? Free. Markets. AND. Socialized. Medicine.
Meanwhile libertarian crazies continue to bash straw men, claiming anyone who disagrees with them is against free markets. We’re in favor of regulated free markets, just like the founders of capitalism.
Pssst, LL… free markets and socialized medicine. Read it and weep.
Has anyone else noticed that the only people referring to Obama as God and Messiah are wingnuts bashing him? Never have I seen anyone who supports Obama referring to him that way.
Since their God Dubya was found to have feet of clay, they’re looking for another God to worship, and Obama clearly doesn’t measure up. 🙂
Interesting developments in the Tenth Amendment Resolutions department.