Plaintiff In Obamacare Suit Files Bankrupcy With Hospital As Creditor

LA Times (h/t John Cole):

In August, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed. Florida and 25 other states were suing, but they needed an individual to contest the mandate. "Mary Brown has standing to challenge the individual mandate," the judges said, and "as long as at least one plaintiff has standing to raise" the claim, the court can rule. The Obama administration appealed, and the Supreme Court said in November it would decide the constitutional challenge.

But by then, Brown's small auto repair shop near Panama City, Fla., had closed, and she and her husband had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Brown said in the petition that her only income was $275 a month in unemployment benefits.

Her bankruptcy came to light in December, when a Wall Street Journal reporter interviewed her about her role in the historic case. In a video interview, Brown said freedom from government was the issue. "I'm not fighting just for me," she said. "It's my choice to have healthcare, not theirs."

Shortly afterward, lawyers for the National Federation of Independent Business informed the court of Brown's troubles, and sent along a copy of her bankruptcy filing.

The couple owed $2,140 to Bay Medical Center in Panama City, $610 to Bay Medical Physicians, $835 to an eye doctor in Alabama and $900 to a specialist in Mississippi.

"This is a very common problem. We cover $30 million in charity and uncompensated care every year," said Christa Hild, a spokeswoman for the hospital center. "If it's a bad debt, we have to absorb it."

Well, society has to absorb it.  It is sad that this happened to the woman, but unfortunately, it is extremely likely for people the age of her and her husband.  I really didn't like the idea of the mandate when Romneycare was introduced, and I wasn't a fan of Clinton and Edwards pushed for it.  It wasn't until the health care debate that I began to pay close enough attention to understand the mechanics of the necessity of the mandate if insurance companies had to give up preexisting condition exclusions.  Maybe it was the increased news coverage, or maybe I'm an Obot.  I think in the end, my opposition to punishing people for not buying coverage was outweighed by the realization that large numbers of people didn't have anything to lose by not buying health insurance.  I could lose large amounts of money by taking a risk that I wouldn't get sick or have a serious accident.  Most people don't have a lot to lose, and if they can't afford the insurance, it makes sense to take that risk.  We as a society need everybody to participate in the system, because everybody will use it.  Now, my main opposition to the program is that it keeps the insurance companies in the game, with their hands in our pockets.