On the recordMarch 7, 2001
One, the point of the Senator's amendment is--and I agree with the thrust of it because there should be no discretion--no discretion--if, in fact, you are bankrupt because of medical bills, then you automatically are out, period. It is done. You do not owe anybody anything; finished, over, done, period. I understand that. And I sympathize with that. I do not want anybody to mix apples and oranges unintentionally or in listening to this debate. What would be implied from this debate or assumed from this debate is somehow, by the passage of this bill, people with medical bills will be put at a greater disadvantage than they are under the present system. That is not true. In the broader question of whether or not bankruptcy law--period-- should be for people who have no ability to pay their bills because they have medical bills, or have no ability to pay their bills because of the loss of their job, or have no ability to pay their bills because they are deemed to be incompetent, even though they have an estate that exists out there--they are all different things that have nothing to do with the question of whether or not this legislation should pass or should fail.
Source
govinfo.gov




