Turner's proposal would require a man seeking Viagra to first attain an affidavit from a sexual partner attesting to his impotency, see a state-approved sex therapist, complete a stress test to assure he is healthy enough for sexual activity, and return to the doctor every 90 days to check on his cardiac health. The patient would also have to attend three outpatient counseling sessions within six months of receiving his prescription to ensure that he fully understands the "dangerous side effects" of taking erectile dysfunction drugs.
I don't really feel schadenfreude, more just the sense that it shows how the current system is broken.
Bankruptcy ruins your credit, but the plain fact remains is that she got at least $4500 in medical care "for free." Many types of medical care under current law simply cannot be refused to critical patients because of inability to pay. Some certainly can and a lot of doctors won't see you if you don't have insurance, but large chunks of the population go to the emergency room because that's where the "free" care is.
That article is a false correlation. The health bills were a small portion of her actual debt. The correlation would work if it could be proven that she wouldn't have gone bankrupt if she had health insurance...which from the article itself doesn't pan out, with the credit card debt and the failing business.
The article doesn't claim that the health bills caused her bankruptcy, they claimed that her health bills are an example of people without insurance getting care they can't pay for, which then has to be paid for by other people.
The headline "Plaintiff challenging healthcare law went bankrupt – with unpaid medical bills" is incredibly misleading and sets the tone with which you read the rest of the article. I will also bet that it was completely intentional.
No, it's just stating that she had unpaid medical bills when she went bankrupt. That's why you have to read entire articles instead of just reading the headline and shouting "THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE STORY RABBLE RABBLE"
I read the entire article, that's why I knew that it wasn't the whole story. My point is that this article was written from a perspective to correlate unpaid health bills with bankruptcy; and add in the irony that the subject was against healthcare reform. The headline eludes to the idea that her bankruptcy was due to medical bills...which it wasn't. Does the article go into greater detail? yeah...about halfway through.
It doesn't correlate unpaid health bills with bankruptcy, it amplified how dire her situation had become. That's what hyphens are for: amplification. Not only was she bankrupt but she also had unpaid medical bills.