White House aiming to scrub medical debt from people’s credit scores, which could up ratings for mil

I'm not so sure. I think it's quite likely that someone may have good credit save for an unfortunate medical need. But I agree that a lender ought to be aware of all financial obligations before extending credit.

 

Coverage is at historic highs so "people simply didn't purchase anymore" doesn't make sense.

Per member per month payouts by insurers offering individual insurance (which only a small sliver of the population has anyway) are higher under the ACA, sure. That was the point. It made individual market coverage more generous (more akin to employer-based coverage) and stopped those policies from excluding buyers with pre-existing conditions.

But it also injected money into those pools to defray the costs people experience (i.e., the premiums they actually pay). The average monthly marketplace premium this year after accounting for the ACA's premium tax credits is $121 for a bronze plan, $65 for a silver plan, and $221 for a gold plan. In other words, based on your numbers that means individual market coverage is costing people less today--for better coverage--than people were paying ten years ago.

 

I have fully cited the huge total cost increases and failure to enroll even half the numbers of the proclaimed people without health insurance. And it is just not premiums what was a $2500 deductible became and $7500 deductable, what was 100% coverage after $2500 out of pocket became 80% after $15000 out of pocket. Millions dropped their insurance entirely and risked self insuring.

And let's not forget the claim was everyone would be getting their SAME coverage and spending $2500 less for it. How laughable in hindsight.

 

Again, try to stay on topic.

This thread is not about who pays your medical bills. It's about not taking hits on your credit score because those bills are huge and create a great deal of personal struggle for most people. I don't think I can put it any clearer than that, so please stop attacking about Obamacare.

 

That may happen in a handful of cases, where said billionaires have taken advantage of loopholes like structuring your income so that it's all cap gains/losses instead of a salary, which is many cases is actually pretty accurate. As an investor, albeit relatively small-time, I can assure you that I can have a losing year on the market (and good chance I will this year unless some things turn around), I could end up with a $0 or even negative tax bill for the year, because my disability doesn't allow me to have a 'real job'. But that doesn't change my net worth, in fact if you consider things like non-realized gains, I can actually show a paper profit on the year even with actual losses. This makes sense because until I sell the asset, my profit is hypothetical and could turn from a gain to a loss with just one piece of bad news. Come 12/31, or thereabouts, sell anything with a loss, thus locking it in, but let the winners ride. It's completely and totally unreasonable to tax someone on unrealized gains that could disappear before you dispose of whatever it is you're holding.

However, overall, considering the amount of the load just 1% of the population pays, they are, as a whole, paying way more than their fair share.

But my point stands. You guys want free sh*t and as much of it as you can get, and you want those complete strangers to pay for it on your behalf, which seems like being in possession of stolen property to me. The amount of things you guys want in the free sh*t bucket is never ending and never expanding, just look at what Build Back Bankrupt tried to accomplish with their new "entitlements", when the truth is, you are entitled to nothing, with exceptions made for some earned benefits, like the GI Bill, and some unearned benefits for those who are not able-bodied or -minded.

Stop making me pay the bills of the stupid and irresponsible and perhaps I'll have a touch more sympathy, but even then it has to be for one or several very good reasons, and they're so dumb and illiterate the only job they are qualified for is a Wal-Mart greeter, which a trained parrot could do ("Welcome to Wal-Mark, squawk, have a nice day!", while hoping nobody teaches it to say... more inappropriate things10), well, their lot in life is THEIR fault and responsibility.

 

So you are ok with some ultra wealthy individuals not paying anything or paying an extremely reduced rate because overall you feel their class is over burdened.

How laughable

Thanks for your opinion, you seem very proud of it

And again, this goes back to my original statement. Other nations have been able to drastically increase the life expectancy and satisfaction of their citizens by making items accessible and as a benefit of their citizenship by actually requiring those in the ultra high worth category (and I doubt you are one) to pay their actual fair share.

As to your sympathy, it is neither required or requested.

 

Silly to focus on one small market segment which was intentionally funneled resources precisely because the coverage before was so inaccessible and skimpy. Today the coverage in the individual market is more comprehensive and more affordable for the vast majority of people in it.

The bigger picture story is that economy-wide relative health care costs are essentially the same as they were in 2010 (and arresting the pre-ACA health care cost growth trend has absolutely saved a lot more than $2,500 per family at this point). Per beneficiary Medicare spending hasn't grown since the ACA passed, health care spending still constitutes virtually the same share of GDP as it did in 2010, per capita health care costs are actually a touch lower as a share of per capita personal income than they were when the ACA passed. All that while newly insuring tens of millions of Americans and pushing uninsurance to all-time lows.

 

I don't know. Ask him.

The fun part about credit cards is that you don't need to stop at the first. In fact, rack em all up then declare bankruptcy and suck it up for 7 years. Problem solved.

 

Are they? How do you know? Just based on your silly sensibilities?

 

So you can't answer and still support this selective guve away? Why have health insurance or pay any bills you get?

 

ROFL you are the one concentrating on a small segment, about half of what was predicted to get any benefit and tje cost is three times higher for the tax payer. And this is nit abiut MediCARE. That is a separate program which itself is not sustainable.

 

On the surface I can see how this idea makes sense. I guess the thinking is if you have had a great credit history and incurred a huge medical bill that you cannot pay it, it should not destroy the history you racked up your entire life. Also someone that had, prior to the medical bill, paid their bills on time are probably not going to start irresponsibly take on new debt once they have the outstanding debt. Realistically people with medical bill try to pay for it with credit cards, line of credits etc... where removing medical debt from credit scores will either not work or be extremely hard to reconcile.

 

Did my first post not explain that I think that all debt/repayments they make should be counted in credit reports? The only thing this is going to do is increase peoples debt load because they will be able to take on more with a higher credit score.

That said, the fact that student loan debt isn't dischargeable via bankruptcy like other debt is silly. If your going to make it special, then don't put interest on it. Just leave it as a principle so that the govt/lenders aren't making money off of the backs of students who are supposed to be moving into the workplace to improve the economy.

 

Math. I'm sure you've heard the analogies comparing our tax policies with, say, a group of 20 people splitting a bill for dinner (which obviously should be done either as $BILL/20=INDIVIDUAL.BILL, or to take the time to do the math to see what each person ate and drank and split the bill based on line item costs. Else you get someone drinking water all night paying a share of the guy who had 10 top-shelf martinis during the meal. Any effort to, oh let's say, split the bill based on an individual's income effectively means the richest guy in the room pays the overwhelming majority of the bill and those on the opposite end get off for a few pennies, if that.

Does that seem reasonable to you? What if you are relatively well off, and go to the grocery store for a simple loaf of bread only to find out that due to your wealth, that $0.49/loaf is going to cost you $100... OR MORE???

The answer to both inquiries is NO, that is not at all reasonable, so most normal folk would split it either equally, if they each felt like they had about the same amount, inclusive of the stupidly priced drinks, and far less frequently that each person get's their own individualized, itemized bill reflective of what they personally ate and drank.

 

Their 'actual fair share' approaches the total price divided by the total working population. I'm willing to create a two-tier system, however, where people under $X in income are off the hook entirely, but the total bill gets split fairly in between those who exceed a certain baseline income.

I also very much wonder what it would do if we set X (from above) to say $75K or even $100K (as it WAS when the abomination known as the income tax was tricked onto the American people, by amongst other things promising that it would only last a few years anyway) and see how the chips fall, but before I can endorse that we'd need to do some expert-level mathematics.

 

The irony is that the same people who clamor about people not paying their debt worship a guy who is known for not paying his debts.

 

Well then mortgage your house and lend the money to students interest free. The fact is a student just graduating with no wealth or assests could just declare bankruptcy and discharge the debt and by the time they do have any need for credit be out of it. It's REAL SIMPLE if you borrow money PAY IT BACK.

 

Absolutely.Tho, in a way it already is. Landlords can go to collections for rent, and that will tank credit. But ya, always paying it on time should make the score go up too.

 

Except government is nothing like comparing a meals split bill. Other than that, bravo.

 

I didn’t hear anyone say that

 

How? You think they’ll go out and get cancer again?

 

Exactly right.....it was a huge success.....for the "winners" it picked.......and it screwed over the majority of the middle class, the ones actually contributing to society and paying their own bills and some of others' bills as well. To help a small percentage of the population, it hurt a much larger percentage, and it hurt them badly. As usual, it's not about helping the lower classes to rise, it's about bringing the middle class down to their level, you know, so we're all more "equal". Except the upper class elites, of course....they're exempt.

 

Average? Let's see the actual stats and ages/locations of people with these policies/premiums you speak of. You know who really got hosed? Middle class people from age 50 to 65. People who worked and saved all their lives, paid for their own kids, never used a government program in their lives and who followed the plan/path and saved and socked money away for early retirement because they worked jobs that were hard on the body. I know several who had no choice but to go back to work at least part time in order to get/afford decent health insurance. But hey, woo-hoo, more people get it free and pay NOTHING with the expanded Medicaid. WITH the expanded tax credits and and living in KY my spouse and I (ages 63 and 60) pay $1350 per month for insurance on the ACA exchange with a $9200 per person max out of pocket. It's a SILVER plan. Ridiculous that health insurance costs more than our house payment/taxes/ins. I can't wait for age 65.

 

Yes because of course your credit score influences cancer rates.

 

Obviously the point is medical bills aren’t the same as maxing out your Best Buy card.