I just completely object to the untrue statement that 1/2 of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. It isn't true. 1/2 of all bankruptcies do have a medical bill in their list of debts but only in a much smaller number of cases is the medical bill driving the bankruptcy.



Under the government plan, most of those treatments won't be available to anyone. As for this case, they had a policy with certain limitations and they chose to ignore those limitations. How is it unfair for them to be responsible for their own decisions?



She's a classic case of the purpose of bankruptcy laws.

But, again, she had a healthcare plan and chose to act contrary to the limitations of it. Why did she not go through their process? I guarantee you, a government run option won't let her jaunt off for the quickest and most expensive treatment she can find for her child, either. You have to go through a process. And even then, to save costs, many of these treatments won't be available.



That is something I will not disagree with in the tiniest way. The current system is mostly good but definitely has some serious flaws.