As I stated in my previous post, I don't know what the qualifying criteria is and what the constraints of those programs are, but they exist for those without economic means.

Apparently there are multiple criteria in determining need beyond income. The article doesn't place a definition on poor, huh (e.g. poverty level, some multiple of poverty level)? Does the article document whether those 60% were even eligible, or were they eligible yet denied because they didn't fit one of the other criteria? Does it it document, categorically, why those 60% were turned away? Honestly, I'm just curious. I mean for instance, I have no income currently, but have savings from when was able to work that are sustaining my needs. Therefore, it is 99.99% likely that I wouldn't qualify.

Children should not suffer. It is really bothersome how people give little or no thought as to how they are going to provide or care for a child, yet ask society/others to shoulder that responsibility for them. Yet, too many children are brought into this world as an afterthought. Therefore, they do suffer, whether they have health insurance or not. So, what might the solution be? Take the children and put them in the hands of the state? I fail to see how health insurance is going to change the fact that a parent needs time away from work to take the child for dental care.

Yes, the bankruptcy issue. Honestly, I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently (not sure if any of my comments are intelligent comments, please). Almost any individual can easily find themselves in catastrophic situation if a devastating health event suddenly strikes. It appears that chronic illness is just as devastating if not more so since it greatly impacts the ability to earn and provide. Therefore, I'd agree that this is one item that needs to be careful examined and addressed. At this juncture, I can only wonder about the numbers provided in the article then. While the bankruptcies were attributed to medical bills, I'd like to understand (and I imagine this is not something you can answer) what is split between catastrophic event, chronic illness, etc.? Also, I wonder in what percentage of those filings was the medical event the one that “tipped the scale”? I mean, how many filings, if any, might have been avoided if people had lived within their means? The whole well educated, middle class statement makes me wonder about that even more as those are the folks that I'd be inclined to believe might live outside their means. However, this middle class thing, may also be more prominent due the fact that it was the earner that was afflicted with the illness. Please don't misunderstand, I realize this is a weighty issue, but it'd be interesting to see more details behind those numbers.
Kind Regards,

Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for peace and freedom. - Aldous Huxley

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. - Thomas Jefferson