• partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think that’s largely true, but aren’t you skipping the idea of a chapter 13 (is it?). I thought there was a major difference between chapter 7 and 13, being that you aren’t required to pay anything back. You may still have to forfeit some assets, but you can also keep assets like a car so long as you can prove you’re making payments and you need it. Also consider, the people who can’t afford insurance and would thus take this option probably don’t have much in the first place. I’m not a lawyer though, what are your thoughts?

    • InvalidName2@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Keep in mind the context of this conversation is “What if all American’s cancel their insurance.”

      Although the premise of this conversation is regarding all Americans, cancelling insurance is only relevant to the subgroup of people who are currently paying for insurance. That excludes a huge chunk of the population right off the bat, including the people you mentioned who can’t afford insurance (but also don’t qualify for other options like Medicaid). There’s nothing for them to cancel because they are already uninsured, they don’t play much of a role in affecting change in this scenario.

      On the topic of bankruptcy, the differences between the options isn’t super important in this context. The majority of people filing for bankruptcy don’t get their debt wiped for free, it’s still a costly and risky option to rely on, and it’s far from being a practical, immediate, and acceptable alternative to maintaining health insurance. Would relying on bankruptcy work for a single person, relatively healthy, with no kids or dependents, few or no assets and low income? Sure. Does that work for the majority of people, who have dependents and/or health issues, own things, and make a typical income, no not really.