You mean someone elected not to buy any health insurance and later regretted it? Where's the problem?
No problem from me, actually. I, too, am a believer in being careful and making sure you're covered. Were I living in the States, I'd ensure I had medical coverage, especially since I'm living with a chronic medical condition.
Well, in the USA, she collects welfare, Food Stamps, rent subsidies, and gets free medical care from MedicAid, in addition to other government supplied benefits, food banks, and charities. If she chooses to go to work, she also collects EITC, which can add 25% to her (tax-free) income; in addition, PIC's can pay half her salary to a prospective employer during any training period. Where's the problem?
The problem as I see it is that welfare is designed to let one survive, not thrive. In most cases it barely covers the necessities of life.
Another problem is, if she chooses to work, her wages may be sufficient to move her above the cutoff limits for Medicaid, but be insufficient for her to purchase health insurance for herself and her children--especially after she feeds, clothes, and houses them. And finds someone to take care of them while she's at work. So if she can't find a job with medical benefits, she's screwed.
How is this better than the systems in Canada and Europe where she and her children are covered no matter what?
He gets a job or he starves.
Frankly, I don't disagree with you. Able bodied people who are able to work should be working. Sometimes, though, reality gets in the way: finding employment isn't always easy, especially if a major employer has shut down and you and all your co-workers are chasing scarce jobs.
And, again, what if the only job you can find lifts you up to the point where you no longer qualify for Medicaid, but can't afford $300 to $1200 per month for medical insurance? Or are all employers required to ensure their employees have medical coverage?
Personal anecdote: after being laid off in 2001, I had trouble finding work. Three years later I was working for $10.00/hour. Above minimum wage and way above welfare, but still not that much. Even with affordable housing (the bank added ten years to my mortgage and cut my payments in half) and frugal living, I was still running up my credit card to help cover costs. There was no way I could have afforded $300 a month for healthcare insurance. Even if the government wasn't adding a few dollars on to my tax bill to cover my Medicare.
Or, if he leaves home (officially, anyway), his wife and children collect welfare, Food stamps, rent subsidies, and get free medical care from MedicAid, etc., etc. If not, in addition, he qualifies for both Unemployment Insurance (income) and medical benefits, as well as federally financed retraining to a new career. Where's the problem?
Well, if your plan when things get tough is to walk out on your wife and kids, I'd see that as a problem.
If he's "officially" not at home but still maintaining a relationship with his on-welfare wife on the side, when truth comes out I suspect you'd be first in line to nail them both to the wall.
Other problems: welfare is available only after you've lost most of your assets. Medicaid likewise. Unemployment insurance lasts for a limited length of time. I'm unsure of how accessible the federal retaining funds are. In addition, people over forty seem to have a disproportionate hard time fining decent jobs.
No emergency room in the USA is allowed to refuse such treatment. If they did, he would have the makings of a hundred million dollar lawsuit and he and his (remaining) children would be set for life. Where's the problem?
What about paying for it afterwards? If your plan when you can't pay a bill is to walk away from it, I'd see that as a problem.
The family in the news article I linked to had run up a previous bill of over $25,000, and that was before their son was hospitalised twice for a ruptured appendix, and before having an appendectomy that was still in the future at the time the article was written.
In reading the article, I see the family were partly to blame: they had bought a bad policy and were alarmingly ignorant of how much medical care actually costs. That wouldn't be a problem in Canada and Europe; they'd just be covered
and they'd still have their savings intact.
Didn't I just provide the most obvious of solutions? Every time I look there are even more benefits for people are who thrown out of work or needing emergency medical care - I don't see a problem here. Where do you?
"For every problem, there is a neat, simple solution--and it is wrong." The problem with the "obvious solutions" you offer (welfare, in particular, and Medicaid) is that
they kick in only after you've lost most of your assets. You had $5,000 in the bank you were planning to use for a rainy day? Well, it just poured and now you're broke. You had $120,000 in RRSPs or 401(k)s? Sorry, that medical crisis you had a couple of years after you were laid off just took the lot of them. Have fun working until you're 75 instead of retiring at 65.
How is this better than the Canadian and European systems?
(Please correct me if I'm wrong; for all I know, 401(k) and similar plans may be untouchable if you're applying for welfare and Medicaid.)
I issue you a challenge. Look up the welfare rates for your area. Assume you're eligible for food stamps, and that you can make a trip to your local food bank once a month, or as often as the food bank allows. If your house is paid for, factor in the cost of a low-rent bachelor suite, since the majority of welfare recipients don't own their own homes.
Then live on only that amount of money for the next month. No credit cards. No bank balance. Begging in the street for spare change is allowed.
If you don't do that, I will remind you of this challenge every time I see you mention the word welfare in a post. I won't assiduously monitor your posts, just the ones you make in the topics we both participate in.
