4 ms·

That was entirely unintentional in connotation. Please refrain from picking fights. It is very unproductive.

• JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  I'm not picking anything. I was stating a fact. A good number of those people would pay their bill if they could. It was presented as though they would not.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • momokoko 7y ago
    Why would someone not pay their bill if they could? You realize that their wages will be garnished and bank accounts frozen, right? So they will be forced to pay as much of the bill as they can. There is no distinction between "can" and "will" as the have to pay it. Outside of bankruptcy which would again take all of their available assets and apply it to the bill before releasing the remainder of the debts through bankruptcy. You don't just get a medical bill will a statement at the bottom that says "Only pay this if you feel like it". There is no one that does not pay a medical bill that can actually pay it. You are derailing this discussion on language semantics. Why? The question was "What's broken about the economics of ERs such that more are not being created to satisfy demand?" My response was to illustrate that ERs lose money. How are your comments in any way productive in providing any insight into that question?
    • JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      When you add "at all" to "Uninsured will not pay" it implies that they are refusing to do so.
      • momokoko 7y ago
        They are not given a choice to "refuse to do so". It is not an option. Please explain how they can "refuse to do so".