Some of this is true, some of it not. Certainly for a family making sub-median wage (say a single income of $35k) a big health care expense (a few-day hospital stay costing $30k, say) is not something that can be borne out of savings or income, period. That's true whether or not it's the wage earner who is sick. So saying that bankruptcies are not from medical expenses or that subsidized health care would not prevent them is just flat wrong.
The point about medicaid is valid (most Europeans in flame wars like this don't know it exists), though eligibility is complicated and there are many people who need care who don't qualify. The $35k household above, for example, probably isn't poor enough.
And the final point is a ridiculous straw man (substituting "every possible treatment" for "treatments"). You should be ashamed of yourself. To be fair, the "people dying because they can't pay" was likewise a distortion though.
> And the final point is a ridiculous straw man (substituting "every possible treatment" for "treatments"). You should be ashamed of yourself.
Why? The claim was that someone was dying because they couldn't afford a treatment. That's going to happen under any system that doesn't pay for every possible treatment.
Since all systems limit treatment, we're actually arguing about where the limits should be and it's dishonst to suggest otherwise.
The point about medicaid is valid (most Europeans in flame wars like this don't know it exists), though eligibility is complicated and there are many people who need care who don't qualify. The $35k household above, for example, probably isn't poor enough.
And the final point is a ridiculous straw man (substituting "every possible treatment" for "treatments"). You should be ashamed of yourself. To be fair, the "people dying because they can't pay" was likewise a distortion though.