Health care and bankruptcy: Still the best places for Republicans to kill off the working class

Of course he's happy; he has health insurance

This morning’s Washington Post carried a story by Ezra Klein that looked at the current health care legislation being considered in the hallowed halls of power. Mr. Klein noted that looking at it one way, what’s being considered is far less than Mr. Obama--not to mention large portions of the electorate currently without health insurance (which means no health care in today’s world)--wanted. But it’s far more than we have now.

The ideal plan, the one NOT on the table at the moment, would cover 93 percent of a person’s medical expenses if they opted into the “gold” level of coverage, and 68 percent if they opted for “bronze.” In the current plan being considered, those with the low-cost plan will only be covered for 65 percent of their requirements.

There’s not much difference between 65 and 68 percent. Either way, an individual or family falling under that plan (one assumes because that’s all they can afford, an especially likely assumption in today’s economy) will likely be driven to bankruptcy. Since 2005, when a grasping, greedy, ignorant corporate trough-sucking Congress enacted a new bankruptcy law (the hilariously named Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005), anyone trying to get the legal relief civilized countries offer, are now made into serfs and ruined for years. Indeed, under the current law (but not the previous one), they’ll probably be turned out of their homes. But at least they’ll be healthy while living on the streets.

And that, gentle readers, you can lay directly at the feet of George W. Bush, the man who presided over the 2005 “reform” and to his toadies on the Hill who wanted to lick the boots--or something--of the credit industry. Chief among those toadies is Charles Grassley (R-IA) the Senate sponsor of that bill.

Co-sponsoring the bill with Mr. Grassley were:

• Sen. Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
• Sen. Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
• Sen. DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
• Sen. Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
• Sen. Hagel, Charles (R-NE)
• Sen. Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
• Sen. Nelson, Bill Sr. (D-FL)
• Sen. Sessions, Jefferson III (R-AL)
• Sen. Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
• Sen. Sununu, John (R-NH)
• Sen. Thune, John (R-SD)
• Sen. Vitter, David (R-LA)

It is important to note that Barack Obama voted against the 2005 law. It was, in fact, very much a Republican law, with ALL the Republican representatives voting for it, in addition to 73 Democrats. Nays included 125 Democrats, and one Independent. There were seven abstentions. (To see how your representatives voted, click here.) In the Senate, 74 voted for it, and only 25 against.

The 1978 bankruptcy law was housing-friendly (and therefore, family friendly). If an individual or family got into severe financial straights, in most instances, they got to keep their homes simply by paying the mortgage, which they could more likely do once the usurious credit card debt--much of which gets run up during illnesses and layoffs and such--was off their plate. Even so, anyone who had student loans couldn’t get them dismissed, making them serfs to higher education.

Being a serf to one’s education is a lot more palatable than being a serf to Citibank or Providian or any of the dozens and dozens of usurious credit card companies whose pressure on Mr. Bush resulted in the so-called bankruptcy reform of 2005. That was a reform only for the creditors; rather than declaring a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to wipe out debt and get a fresh start, those backed into a credit corner--via job loss, miscalculation, the search for the good life they see on TV, loose ethics, or major illness--now must serve the creditors with a portion of their income, no matter how meager, for three to five years. No fresh start; indeed, it is probably more attractive these days, especially for non-homeowners, to just ditch the bills and endure the judgments. At least whatever money they can corral, they can keep and try to make it back to a decent life.

What Mr. Bush and his reprehensible henchmen (led by Charles Grassley) have done is cause an entire generation to live with No Exit, no matter the cause of their woes. We may as well re-institute debtor’s prisons, because frankly, those who get into credit trouble now would be better off that way. At least they’d be fed, cared for and have their medical needs met at least in a rudimentary way.

Perhaps it won’t surprise anyone that Grassley, champion of the status quo for both haves and have-nots, is now trying to torpedo health care. Writing in New West, Joan McCarter wrote:

You don’t need Grassley’s tweets to understand that he isn’t approaching health care reform in good faith or what his vision on bipartisanship is when it comes to health care reform. Bipartisanship in his mind means what it usually means to Republicans--Dems capitulating on a public option. He makes it absolutely clear in a letter he sent to President Obama, along with a handful of his Republican colleagues.”

What Grassley is doing is pretty unethical. But then, his interests seem mainly to be unethical, if one equates financially punishing the poor, almost poor, and almost solvent, the better to serve those who need no help because they own everything already. Was the 2005 bankruptcy reform act ethical? Not in any form of government except an oligarchy. We supposedly do not live in an oligarchy; we supposedly live in a democratic republic. But the 2005 act is such an enormous wealth transfer to the legal and credit industries that it is hard to think of any member of Congress who voted for it as anything except an oligarch.

Here are the telltale numbers: Under the 1978 law, filing bankruptcy cost about $800 to $1,400, including attorney and other fees, according to a 2007 Business Week article. By 2007, the cost had risen to $1,400 to $2,400. Please tell me how a low-income individual having a credit meltdown?or even many middle income individuals having credit meltdowns?could possibly afford even to pay for the legal process to make themselves into serfs to the credit industry.

Here, in telegraphic form, is what Mr. Bush (thankfully out of power) and Mr. Grassley (unfortunately still throwing his unethical weight around) have wrought:

• Approximately one-third of the nation has no health insurance.
• Maybe that’s a good thing, because if they did, they might think they were entitled to some health care.
• If their insurance provider behaved as most insurance providers do--that is, using every trick in the book and some brand new ones to avoid paying--then they’d rack up some hefty bills.
• If they were unable to pay all their expenses after all that, then…

Oh, too bad. There is no Then. Because THEN they would be stuck as indentured servants to their consumer creditors as well as the hospitals and doctors, with no relief in sight.

Here’s my solution: Go with the lower-cost plan. But, at the same time, give the credit companies a kick in the pants and return the bankruptcy law to its 1978 configuration so that many more people will be able to get ordinary health care, and such few as require extraordinary measures and still can't afford them can at least declare a legitimate bankruptch and go on with their lives once they’re healed.

It’s really the only fair and workable thing to do at the moment. Indeed, even if Congress enacts no health care program, ethically, Congress must return the bankruptcy laws to the 1978 configuration. Purely on a logistical basis, we've bailed out the financial industry sufficiently, and it's time we got something in return. The ability to declare a legitimate bankruptcy for legitimate reasons without becoming a de facto indentured servant is little enough to ask.  Sure there were some abuses. But those abuses pale in comparison to the abuse heaped upon us by George W. Bush and his willing and craven Congress in 2005, led by the apparently shameless Charles Grassley.