Then set up a charity where people with medical bills can submit them and ask for some assistance. That way they stay out of debt/bankruptcy, have a cleaner credit report, and can focus on their health issues not financial issues.

So... universal health care then :P

An organization that receives all your medical bills, keeps you out of debt/bankruptcy, and charges you an amount that it determines would not cause undue hardship? Like insurance, except everyone qualifies!

Slight side note: this whole discussion is somewhat depressing, but I've come to expect this from HN lately. This whole thread is divided into two rough parts: people addressing legitimate questions about the legalities of this venture, and people clucking derisively at the stereotypical straw man of the poor.

Whether it's sexism in tech, racism around the world, or the plight of the American poor re: medicine, there are always a ready army of the privileged ready to attack people for imaginary and insultingly intellectually lazy stereotypes.

So I'm clucking derisively. And the nice ad hominem touches about sexism, racism, privilege etc.

This isn't LN, it's HN. Where both the methods and the motives can be discussed. My opinion is that OWS is aiming more for a political statement with this program as opposed to helping people. They may believe that this political statement will do more to help people than just acting as a charity; I'm not ascribing cynical motives in any way.

I'm also not advocating that a charity charge in any way. For example, when I had cancer, my church, without any prompting gave me a cash payment to help with my bills. I had been fired two days before Christmas, and unable to work during my surgical recovery and post-op chemo. It was immensely welcome, though as many are, I was intensely embarrassed to need the $$.

For a hobby, I kept all my bills and tallied up the cost I'd be responsible had I not been covered by my wife's group policy. I stopped after it hit the $600K mark. So I know first hand how staggering my debt would have been.

But I could have discharged all that medical debt in bankruptcy. But that wouldn't have put fed my daughters, nor helped keep a roof over my head. That check from my church did. I know the fine line between being privileged and being out of work and afraid of dying. The old straw about the difference between middle class and poor being one paycheck is really one malignant cell.

So be careful when you start calling people privileged or sexist, or racist. And when you start to decide whether a question is "legitimate" or not.

I apologize - my post was unclear. It wasn't my intention to label you as "clucking derisively" - that was more of a footnote re: the rest of this thread, and other users whose posts are as ignorant as they are judgmental.

Once again - my post was written poorly, please separate the two halves, the latter of which was not in any way intended to be aimed at you.

Specifically regarding your medical history - the difference between a universal health care system and charity in this case seems like luck. You were fortunate that in your hour of need someone extended their hand to pull you up - universal health care takes the guesswork out of this. The hand is available to everyone.

I am unconvinced that relying on charities is an acceptable alternative to government assistance in areas such as medicine and poverty. The stakes are far too high for people to receive help via dice roll.

Yeah, I took it the wrong way. No worries, I should have a thicker skin.

I was very lucky with my medical stuff. My wife has excellent, I mean excellent group insurance. Even with that, I still had a lot of out of pocket/copay expenses; and getting canned sure didn't help since I was the primary breadwinner. Universal healthcare wouldn't have helped me with my lost job however; only something like a short-term disability plan (which I have now) would. So I think there's a place and need for charity and non-governmental aid. The US is population is pretty generous, but it's hard to know where to ask for help, and if you can count on it when needed.

The difference is that in universal health care, the government puts a gun to your head and forces you to "help."

National government using its superior capacity for organized action to ensure that its most vulnerable citizens are taken care of is truly the greatest crime of this century.

All government action is backed up by the threat of coercion. Singling out health care is disingenuous. The anti-war crowd doesn't like seeing their taxes go to fighting in Iraq and elsewhere, but they too have a gun put to their heads.