62% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007 were caused by health problems

[freegood]

What's most likely to bankrupt you (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/whats-most-likely-to-bankrupt-you.aspx)

Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the US in 2007 were caused by health problems -- and 78% of those filers had insurance.

By BusinessWeek

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their homes, and three-fifths had gone to college.

But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of-pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families that started out with insurance but lost it during the course of illnesses, medical bills averaged $22,658.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."

The study underscores President Barack Obama's arguments in calling for health care reform legislation this year. In a recent letter to Democratic Senate leaders, the president said: "Health care reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity we cannot defer. Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need."

Continued: A heavy toll on families

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published online by The American Journal of Medicine. It will appear in the Journal's August print edition. The researchers examined the court records of a random sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filings across the nation during early 2007 and contacted those filers for written explanations. The researchers then followed up with extensive phone interviews of 1,032 of those filers.

They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home. The remaining 8% went bankrupt because a medical problem caused them to lose income.

The authors were not able to track credit card defaults caused by medical bills, but a 2007 study found that, of low- and middle-income households with credit card debt, 29% used their plastic to pay off medical expenses.

Individuals with diabetes, one of the most common chronic diseases in the U.S., and those with neurological illnesses such as multiple sclerosis had the highest costs, an average of $26,971 and $34,167, respectively. Hospital bills were the largest single expense for half of all medically bankrupt families.

Woolhandler, an advocate of a single-payer health care system, said lawmakers in Washington should reconsider health care reform in light of the study.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."

This article was reported by Catherine Arnst for BusinessWeek.

Published July 15, 2009

[Das Kahlua]

It would be much better to have government run health care so the taxes can bankrupt people, or they just won't get the health care they need in the first place.

This seems to me to be an argument to improve our current health care system, not throw away our current one and let the government take over.

[freegood]

I've never heard of taxes bankrupting people (evasion penalties are a different story), but carry on, I want to hear more fearmongering.

Guess who's healthcare system is among the most wasteful and inefficient in the industrialized world?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

[Claydon]

I've never heard of taxes bankrupting people (evasion penalties are a different story), but carry on, I want to hear more fearmongering.

Guess who's healthcare system is among the most wasteful and inefficient in the industrialized world?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

and yet...

Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.
Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.
But the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.
There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.
The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP.
Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more.
GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds.
Its author, Chris Groom, said: 'This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength.
'It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.'
The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people's needs, including helping them remain in work.

More...
Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year - about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability.
'Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in', Mr Groom said.
The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought.
Mr Groom added: 'We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.'
Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: 'The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years.
'Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks.
'We applaud the audit's recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.'
Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis.
Health minister Ann Keen said: 'We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1199714/A-9-month-wait-arthritis-treatment-Delay-mean-lifetime-agony-victims.html#ixzz0LOtM8VW1

[jimmyb]

Healthcare sucks. Who needs it?

[Claydon]

Healthcare sucks. Who needs it?

i do..

and yet, i always seem to be able to afford it, and get it.

hmmmmmm

[jimmyb]

Well then you are one up on most of America. Then again, most of America should probably die.

[Claydon]

Well then you are one up on most of America. Then again, most of America should probably die.

stop drinking the kool aide.

apparently 45 million are without coverage... so that means 255 million have it...


hmmmm

[jimmyb]

Its not Kool Aid - its PBR dammit.

[freegood]

Well Claydon, you can rest easy knowing that the US system will not be entirely controlled by the government like the UK system. No politician has proposed it.

If anything, American elderly are already covered by government sponsored healthcare. I would think they would suffer from rheumatoid arthritis the most. We should euthanize those damn socialists.


stop drinking the kool aide.

apparently 45 million are without coverage... so that means 255 million have it...


hmmmm

If you read the article ~60% had some form of private coverage but was still inadequate to cover the costs of their medical bills.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."

Yeah, I consider the debate has advanced to the point where people are forced to think of the next step....

[Claydon]

its just fucking amazing to me.

somehow i have always kept coverage, employed, unemployed, fucking poor, you name it.

I have always had my own policy, and even recently when I had really bad neck problems I went to urgent care rather than going to the fucking emergency room where most dipshits go. You can be taken care of for about 90% less. Radiographs and MD visit was $200 before insurance.

My wife gets $50,000 of free medication every quarter from a evil pharm company, and has for nearly 7 years. Somehow, she has always had coverage, always taken care of.


Everyone has assholes and excuses for not taking care of themselves.

[Mustard]

All of you! Less bitching, and more naked asian womens!

[Claydon]

All of you! Less bitching, and more naked asian womens!

i have 90 gigs of naked asians

[Mustard]

Good. More of that. Less of this.

[Claydon]

Well Claydon, you can rest easy knowing that the US system will not be entirely controlled by the government like the UK system. No politician has proposed it.

If anything, American elderly are already covered by government sponsored healthcare. I would think they would suffer from rheumatoid arthritis the most. We should euthanize those damn socialists.




If you read the article ~60% had some form of private coverage but was still inadequate to cover the costs of their medical bills.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."

Yeah, I consider the debate has advanced to the point where people are forced to think of the next step....

fab man, go be a worthless fucking tit and live off of the fucking government.

you may thank my $28,000 in fed taxes last year (not including state, federal, sales etc, not including what the missus paid) for your worthless ass. Enjoy your crowded nightmare doctor offices and hospitals.

[jimmyb]

Hey - take it easy.

[freegood]

You're not very good at making guesses Claydon, but at least you're still good at failing.

My plan would have naked asian nurses paid for by Uncle Sam.

[Claydon]

You're not very good at making guesses Claydon, but at least you're still good at failing.

My plan would have naked asian nurses paid for by Uncle Sam.

NOW YOU'RE TALKING.

[fuldstændigamok]

It would be much better to have government run health care so the taxes can bankrupt people, or they just won't get the health care they need in the first place.

This seems to me to be an argument to improve our current health care system, not throw away our current one and let the government take over.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Aren't you people tired of using this same crappy old argument?
About something that you have never tried besides. Here is a thought, give it a shot and see how it turns out, if it blows, just go back to your actual system of not giving a shit about anybody but yourself, but you might all be surprised and find out that it can work.

[IdiotBrain]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Aren't you people tired of using this same crappy old argument?
About something that you have never tried besides. Here is a thought, give it a shot and see how it turns out, if it blows, just go back to your actual system of not giving a shit about anybody but yourself, but you might all be surprised and find out that it can work.

Right! It's like socialism! I mean, SURE it didn't work anywhere else it was tried, but we haven't tried it HERE yet! So lets give it a shot!

Fuld, that was the stupidest argument you've ever made in a very diverse series of stupid arguments.

[Mustard]

Right! It's like socialism! I mean, SURE it didn't work anywhere else it was tried, but we haven't tried it HERE yet! So lets give it a shot!

Fuld, that was the stupidest argument you've ever made in a very diverse series of stupid arguments.
Fuld doesn't need anybody to stick up for him, but oh hell, I just feel so..... compelled to.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

First off, Fuld is French. Just thought I'd throw that out there. According to the WHO, (World Health Organization, not the band) as of the year 2000 they compiled the list below. France was #1 on the list. The USA was #37 on the list.

Listening to someone who resides in the nation ranked #1 on this issue is a good idea. Kinda like why it would be a good idea to take sprinting tips from Usain Bolt, or to get tips on how to be evil from Darth Vader. You feel me?

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 <A href="http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html" target=_blank>United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50-190 A bunch of nations nobody really cares about
I dunno about the rest of you, but ranking #37 in anything against the rest of the world is something I'm just not ready to be content with.

[IdiotBrain]

The analysts behind the WHO rankings express the hope that their framework "will lay the basis for a shift from ideological discourse on health policy to a more empirical one." Yet the WHO rankings themselves have a strong ideological component. They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance. Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components. And finally, the WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle preferences that differ among individuals and across countries.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236

[Mustard]

I've read that as well. Regardless of the 12 page report the cato institute did, the fact remains that health care in the US is broken, and elsewhere, it isn't (or is but is to a lesser extent comparatively). Make all the excuses you want, but they are falling on deaf ears, and denial won't get us anywhere. So please, don't take offense while the progressive community pulls the US into the 21st century with regards to health care policy, because its going to be difficult for the cons out there to deal with. All they seem to want to do is deride the notion of progress in determining what the problem is, and what it will take to fix it, opting not to provide any solutions in the process, and damning any attempt to change the status quo as herecy.

To put it plainly, if you aren't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. We have the technology, (and the best ER tech on Earth IMO) but now its time to get with the program. I have no qualms with disregarding any opinion from a fundamentally flawed position of maintaining the already defunct status quo.

[fuldstændigamok]

Right! It's like socialism! I mean, SURE it didn't work anywhere else it was tried, but we haven't tried it HERE yet! So lets give it a shot!

Fuld, that was the stupidest argument you've ever made in a very diverse series of stupid arguments.

How can you say with such morgue that it is a stupid argument when you clearly haven't a clue of what you're talking about? Furthermore, how can you say that it hasn't work anywhere when, funnily enough, it's bloody working in a various range of countries? Just try, for once, to leave the idiot part of you aside, and use the brain part instead, will you?
I am French and I am living in Denmark, 2 of these so called "socialists" countries of you (who BTW are as socialist as North Korea is a democracy), and I have seen first hand that a generalised health system such as social security is indeed working. Sure it costs money for EVERYONE according to their income, which I'm fine with. A notion that is lost on you, of course, as you blatantly reminded us on the other thread right below. I'm paying 43% of tax, but that leaves me with well enough money to live confortably with, trust me. That also leaves me with the happy feeling that everybody in my country has access to top range doctors and material equipments when they need so. Be it a bum or a CEO. And that, is priceless.

[Archangel]

Yes.

The government using some taxes to help the less fortunate is EXACTLY THE SAME as socialism. Matter of fact, I'm living in a socialist state, in which executives make $100 million a year, the first word in the ruling party's name is "Christian", the Audi A4, BMW 3-series and Mercedes C-Class are the second, fourth and fifth most sold vehicles on the market, the communist party is banned by law, and I have private health insurance which covers bloody everything. I hardly see any difference between us and Cuba, now that you mention it.

I am hereby declaring "republican" to be synonymous with "imbecile". One day, you people will understand the difference between an opinion and a fear-mongering slogan.

By the way, how much are those new Ford-class supercarriers gonna cost you guys?

[IdiotBrain]

First of all, Mustard, modern day progressivism in the United States is a movement geared towards turning the US into a socialist nation. Universal healthcare is only the first step.

Second, Arch, read my fucking post. I didn't state that universal healthcare was comparable to socialism, I stated that his argument towards universal healthcare was on par with the argument that "Just because it hasn't worked elsewhere, doesn't mean it won't work here!" I attacked his argument, plain and simple.

And Fuld, it's GREAT that you enjoy paying 40%+ taxes in order to give healthcare to your fellow countrymen. Have at, enjoy. Bon apetite and whatnot. The fact of the matter is that I see too many problems with Canada and the UK's system, and am a heartfelt supporter of a free market. Healthcare is a market that will soon no longer be free. It starts with one market and spreads to the others.... banks... automotive industry... healthcare....

Again to Mustard: The fact remains that I posted a link to a trusted organization which is clearly stating how and why the report you cited is false. You acknowledge that there is a high probability that said report is false, yet you fail to change your argument in the least, or even bring anything else to the table. And I'm the one with the shallow world view? At least I gave your argument enough legitimacy to actually rebut it with something trumping it. All you gave me is some bullshit about deaf ears. Fuck me, do you not see the irony there?




It's almost 6am, you silly bitches argue amongst yourselves, I'm going to sleep.

[Archangel]

We gladly pay taxes so poor children in our country with leukaemia can get a cure, something you people frown upon.

You gladly pay taxes to bomb poor children in other countries, something generally frowned upon here.


It's a question of priorities, I guess, but I consider healthcare to be a better use of my tax money than, say, Iraq...

[Mustard]

First of all, Mustard, modern day progressivism in the United States is a movement geared towards turning the US into a socialist nation. Universal healthcare is only the first step.
Are you fucking serious? I'm a progressive person, and I don't want the US to be a socialist nation. Your blanket statement is both false and a libelous right-wing talking point straight from the mouth of those like Limbaugh and Beck that both lacks merit and serves to turn this discussion from one of reason into a farse unfit for logic.

If this is the fate of all discussions from here on out, I'm going to leave your kind to rot in my wake.

If you had any notion of what you were talking about regarding socialism and the progressive movement, (aside from what you seem to be saying that has the same stench from the pundits of the Fox News Channel) you would be ashamed of yourself for spouting such vitriolic, non-sensical diatribe. Un-by-god-believeable.

Again to Mustard: The fact remains that I posted a link to a trusted organization which is clearly stating how and why the report you cited is false. You acknowledge that there is a high probability that said report is false, yet you fail to change your argument in the least, or even bring anything else to the table. And I'm the one with the shallow world view? At least I gave your argument enough legitimacy to actually rebut it with something trumping it. All you gave me is some bullshit about deaf ears. Fuck me, do you not see the irony there?
You can't see the forest through the trees. I'm not the one with the problem here, you are. If you want to subscribe to the failure that is the status quo, thats your choice. But don't bog this progressive movement down with your selfishness. I think health care should be a right, not a privilidge, and therefore I don't mind ponying up extra money to see that all of my fellow countrymen have access to all of the health care they will ever need. I want to make my country the best it possibly can be, and you bet your ass I'll spend my last dime to see that happen, yet me and my kind gets labeled as the unpatriotic ones by you and your ilk?

To steal your words: Fuck me... Do YOU not see the irony THERE?

[Pox]

First of all, Mustard, modern day progressivism in the United States is a movement geared towards turning the US into a socialist nation. Universal healthcare is only the first step.Its unbelievable how often you see nonsense like this these days. I suppose its the equivalent stupidity of people who were yelling about how Bush was a fascist and whatnot, but it seems so much more widespread and mainstream.

[Archangel]

Bush wasn't a fascist.



Cheney, on the other hand...

Seriously, though. I think that this paranoia about anything not 18th century instantly turning America into a socialist state is rooted in a subconcious recognition if the inherent injustice of the status quo.

Any country in Europe has millions of programmes your average imbecile (synonym!) would blast for being "socialist" - but anybody who's actually been outside the US knows that we're as far from socialism as red staters are from common sense.

[Pox]

Americans get very excited when you talk about socialism. I think its because many people can't separate socialism via Marx from socialism via rhetoric. For all Marx's mistakes, he was criticizing a society in which the flaws were so self evident that they would have been corrected regardless.

These days, the idea that the government should use at least some resources to fix societal problems is basically consensus. We've either been living in a socialist mindset for the majority of a century or we haven't. Certainly, there are gradations on the scale, but just because 5 is closer to 10 than 4 is to 10 does not mean 5=10. Likewise the patriot act may have moved us closer to some nebulous definition of fascism, but only a fool would equate them.

[Archangel]

Indeed, but the touchiness of certain people regarding the subject continues to amaze me. It may be an inherently American characteristic to view things in black and white, but the notion that one programme would necessiter lead down an inexorable gravity well with communism as the black hole at its centre is so blatantly ridiculous that one has to ask himself some rather serious questions about the stability of your society, or at least the perception thereof.

Let's say a friend drives a trusty old Cadillac. It's served him well for a long time, but now it has certain problems; it may be leaking oil, misfiring a bit, and generally be running inefficiently and becoming increasingly noisome to a point where ignoring the problems is starting to become impossible.

The sane reaction here, obviously, might be to do a little fixing here and there; new oil filters and sumps, some fresh spark plugs, a new fuel pump, and hey, maybe even install a catalytic converter and mess about a bit with engine management. Relatively minor tweaks, all in all. It's still a good car; once those niggles have been addressed, it'll probably run more smoothly.

Now imagine you suggesting that to your friend, and him throwing a tantrum about how you're NOT EVER gonna turn his beloved Caddy into some gay green Japanese hybrid. It has always run this way, and he'll be damned before he sees its essence raped like that; anything to ever change one iota WILL result in it inevitably becoming a hybrid, like ALL the other cars out there, which ALL suck balls.

Does that suggest confidence? Or knowledge about what a hybrid is?

[Morfin]

Going back to the original Business Week article, I read something into this study beyond that our health care system needs to be fixed. I see that people have saved so little money and are living so close to their financial edge, that a sudden financial emergency puts them over the edge.

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of-pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families that started out with insurance but lost it during the course of illnesses, medical bills averaged $22,658.

They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home. The remaining 8% went bankrupt because a medical problem caused them to lose income.

The authors were not able to track credit card defaults caused by medical bills, but a 2007 study found that, of low- and middle-income households with credit card debt, 29% used their plastic to pay off medical expenses.


There is no question that the $17,000, and $26,000 figures represent a lot of money. However, if we turned back the clock to 1981, when only 8% of bankruptcies were related to medical issues, I would bet (and I am too lazy to look up any statistics) that Americans as a whole had greater savings rates and, on average, higher equity in their homes such that a sudden emergency caused a problem, but one that could be paid for and endured.

Note the figures about the number of people that put medical bills on credit cards. I infer from this that these people have no savings at all to tap and no equity in their homes to use (note that these were bankruptcies from 2007, prior to when the housing values dropped significantly).

My point is that if you are living and spending at a level that is close to your limit, you have no ability to absorb an emergency.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."

I think this is a bullshit statement which reeks of hyperbole and demagoguery, which should have been beneath the authors of this study. Note that the article states that Himmelstein is an advocate of a single payer health care system who appears to be advocating in this statement, rather than dispassionately commenting on the data.

[Archangel]

Doesn't the average American family have like $10k's worth of credit card debts?


Dumbarses.

[Morfin]

Or more. You could earn $500,000 a year, but if you spend $490,000, you're looking at bankruptcy if you get a $26,000 bill, regardless of the fact that you shouldn't have any trouble at all paying it. (Hyperbolic example, I realize.)

[fuldstændigamok]

Or more. You could earn $500,000 a year, but if you spend $490,000, you're looking at bankruptcy if you get a $26,000 bill, regardless of the fact that you shouldn't have any trouble at all paying it. (Hyperbolic example, I realize.)

Except if you have social security, in which case you will never receive a $26,000 bill, coz you know, you wouldn't have to pay such a bill.

[Insomniac]

You'll just pay $250,000 in taxes.

[fuldstændigamok]

You'll just pay $250,000 in taxes.

I pay that about every 14 months, that's not scaring me.

[redsox39]

Doesn't the average American family have like $10k's worth of credit card debts?


Dumbarses.

That's the problem with averages. There are alot of families with
80-100k+ in credit card debt, and they jack the shit out of that average.

So then, people don't feel bad when they hit the 10k mark, because that means they are just like their neighbors.

Besides my brother, who is a dipshit, I have never met anyone who accrued over 10K in Credit card debt, but I have heard the stories. (Edit - not counting student loans)

[Pox]

I'm about to graduate college with 5,000 in debt.

Maybe I should buy a house right now.

[Claydon]

Lulz arch says we let kids die. Kids die in this country due to non treatment o ly because their parents are retarded dumbasses. "free" healthcare is available if you are young or old.

[tockit]

Well Claydon, you can rest easy knowing that the US system will not be entirely controlled by the government like the UK system. No politician has proposed it.
Who knows what's in the proposal? The thing is over 1000 pages and BHO is already pushing congress to vote on it before the August recess.

Truth be know, no one has even read the entire bill yet.

This is exactly the same thing the House did with the Cap and Trade Bill.

If this Bill is so important for the future of our country, why the rush?

If you read the article ~60% had some form of private coverage but was still inadequate to cover the costs of their medical bills.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."
There are better ways to decrease the costs of health insurance in the US besides implementing this train wreck of legislation.

Tax breaks for the self insured, malpractice lawsuit reform, along with incentives for preventative care are a few.

Taxing small businesses for a big part of the funding to pay for this bill, at a time when the country is in the deepest recession since the great depression is insanity.

Although, nothing surprises me these days with this administration.

[tockit]

Lulz arch says we let kids die. Kids die in this country due to non treatment o ly because their parents are retarded dumbasses. "free" healthcare is available if you are young or old.
The problem with Arch is that what he says and what's the truth, are usually two entirely different things.

[freegood]

If this Bill is so important for the future of our country, why the rush?

My honest guess is that the President needs a victory to stem the sustained rise in employment levels. Too many people believe economic recovery will return us to levels several years before. Instead, an end to recession will still mean stagnant wages and more (at a slower rate) job losses for the next 12-24 months.


There are better ways to decrease the costs of health insurance in the US besides implementing this train wreck of legislation.

Tax breaks for the self insured, malpractice lawsuit reform, along with incentives for preventative care are a few.

Taxing small businesses for a big part of the funding to pay for this bill, at a time when the country is in the deepest recession since the great depression is insanity.

Although, nothing surprises me these days with this administration.

The constant disappointment I have for Republican politicians is the lack of a better alternative, detailed and in writing. Even the proposals you laid out and brought forth by them would give me a bit more respect for them. They sat on this during a Republican controlled government, and they still continue to bring out nothing but refusals and rebuttals.

I think you'd be surprised in the number of people who support a national health plan but would accept spirited and credible dialogue in proposals, such as a public-private hybrid used in countries such as Germany or France.

[fuldstændigamok]

The problem with Arch is that what he says and what's the truth, are usually two entirely different things.
As opposed to you?

Oh, and BOOM!

[tockit]

My honest guess is that the President needs a victory to stem the sustained rise in employment levels. Too many people believe economic recovery will return us to levels several years before. Instead, an end to recession will still mean stagnant wages and more (at a slower rate) job losses for the next 12-24 months.
I'm thinking the reason is because his job performance is beginning to wane in recent polling and he wants to push this through as quickly as possible due to the fact that many democrats are increasingly reluctant about raising taxes and increasing the deficit during the current economic climate.

The constant disappointment I have for Republican politicians is the lack of a better alternative, detailed and in writing. Even the proposals you laid out and brought forth by them would give me a bit more respect for them. They sat on this during a Republican controlled government, and they still continue to bring out nothing but refusals and rebuttals.
You're absolutely right.

[tockit]

As opposed to you?

Oh, and BOOM!
You are absolutely histerical.......:rolleyes:

Word to the wise, don't quit your day job for a career in comedy.

[fuldstændigamok]

Iknowrite?


Now, Alcestis's gonna be pissed about me. again.




Sorry Lynn, <3

[tockit]

Iknowrite?

Now, Alcestis's gonna be pissed about me. again.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say ???

Maybe you should stick to something you actually know about, like torrent uploads?

[fuldstændigamok]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say ???

Maybe you should stick to something you actually know about, like torrent uploads?

Oh, ok. Well, Alcestis is the admin you always send PM or rep crying about how awfull I am with you, asking her to put your rep back in the green (lying about it too, sometimes....) and she does it (coz she's like that you know, she REALLY is a sweetheart and she has a soft spot for losers like you).

[tockit]

Oh, ok. Well Alcestis is the admin you always send PM or rep crying about how awfull I am with you, asking her to put your rep back in the green (lying about it too, sometimes....) and she does it (coz she's like that you know, she REALLY is a sweetheart and she has a soft spot for losers like you).
Whatever you say Fuld.

I've never said anything personally negative about you on these forums.

But since you mentioned it, it is getting really old, and your actions are very juvenile the way you manipulate my Rep, along with the Rep of others on here at your whim.

Maybe your not up to being an Administrator?

I can see if my 12 year old is interested in your administrator job. She does things like the stuff you're doing on here.

And with all that BS, we've wasted about a page talking about your immature issues.

Sorry folks.

[fuldstændigamok]

Immature?


On my GMF?



OH NOES!

[Claydon]

Doesn't the average American family have like $10k's worth of credit card debts?


Dumbarses.

something like that, hence most americans are fools with their money.

For instance, my buddy has $14,000 in CC debt, how the fuck he did that I have no idea. The wife and I have a combined CC debt of $900 which we will pay off next month, plus we have a huge cash pile.

It just depends how you set your priority, clearly our society promotes unbelievable consumption, in my life and even now I know people who forgo the purchasing of modest group coverage in favor of spending the money at bars etc.

It is just how you place your priorities. For me, it has ALWAYS been a priority to have a insurance plan, it was something drilled into me from childhood.

[Yelram]

Well Claydon, you can rest easy knowing that the US system will not be entirely controlled by the government like the UK system. No politician has proposed it.



Dude, when did you become such a moron? Did you go to reeducation camp or something?
PAGE 16 BITCH.
http://www.freedomworks.org/files/HealthCare%20Reform%20Bill.pdf

I cant believe you people dont get this. This is the end of it, this is where they bring all of the scary corporations into a singular government entity, spanning from your purchase records, to your recreational decisions, and all under the guise of "healing the sick, and clothing the poor", all the while enslaving the free. WAKE THE FUCK UP. It ends like this, either the government runs all the corporations, or the corporations run the government, its either fascism or communism, or redefining for the world what freedom is. Reaffirming that the only solution to the human condition, is the liberation from government intervention.

[Claydon]

I have no idea what any of that means...

I have retained the services of Morfin and Shceister to assist me with translating that gibberish.

[Debo]

I've never heard of taxes bankrupting people (evasion penalties are a different story), but carry on, I want to hear more fearmongering.

Guess who's healthcare system is among the most wasteful and inefficient in the industrialized world?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

It is a bullshit comparison:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/06/international-health-comparisons.html

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

How many of these people could afford insurance, but chose not to buy it? How many are here illegally? There are a ton of questions that need to be answered before we allow the government to take over our health care system.

Here is another fun link:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

I don't see how expanding the gov's health care liabilities is going to help solve our deficit problem. Hopefully the bond vigilantes will kill any chance of financing this bill.

I should also point out that the BK laws changed in 2005. So any comparison between 2001 and 2007 isn't a fair comparison.

I doubt that such minor details matter to you.

[Debo]

By the way, how much are those new Ford-class supercarriers gonna cost you guys?

We should send you part of the bill since you and the rest of Western Europe have been free riding off of our military for decades.

[freegood]

It is a bullshit comparison:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/06/international-health-comparisons.html


Which is the bullshit comparison: Mankow is comparing life expectancy, while the OECD discusses health expenditure per capita in detail. The article does mention life expectancy but it's only one detail, one paragraph, and not the main drive of the article.

I do not mention lifestyle indicators attached to healthcare. You're free to inject it in the debate, but don't strawman me into claiming it's a comparison I made.

But since we're going down into the details, the nitty gritty, here's what I'm talking about so you don't have to waste a single click.



OECD Health Data 2008
How Does the United States Compare
Total health spending accounted for 15.3% of GDP in the United States in 2006, the highest share in the OECD, and more than six percentage points higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries. Following the United States were Switzerland, France and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.3%, 11.1% and 10.6% of their GDP to health. The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 6,714 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD average of 2,824 USD in 2006. Norway follows, with spending of 4,520 USD per capita, then Switzerland and Luxembourg with spending of over 4,300 USD per capita. Differences in health spending across countries may reflect differences in price, volume and quality of medical goods and services consumed.
http://i27.tinypic.com/wtu9li.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/243s0si.jpg
Data are expressed in US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities (PPPs), which provide a means of comparing spending between countries on a common base. PPPs are the rates of currency conversion that equalise the cost of a given ‘basket’ of goods and services in different countries.

Between 2000 and 2007, health spending per capita in the United States increased, in real terms, by 3.7% per year on average, the same rate as the OECD average. The public share of health expenditure in the United States (45%) is much lower than in any other OECD country (except Mexico, also 45%), but nevertheless public expenditure on health is higher than in most other OECD countries, because overall spending per capita is so much greater. For this amount of expenditure in the United States, government provides insurance coverage only for the elderly and disabled (through Medicare, which primarily insures persons aged 65 and over and people with disabilities) and some of the poor (through Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, SCHIP), whereas in most other OECD countries this is enough for government to provide universal primary health insurance.

Private insurance accounts for 35% of total health spending in the United States, by far the largest share among OECD countries. Beside the United States, Canada and France are the only two other OECD countries where private insurance represents more than 10% of total health spending.

Resources in the health sector (human, physical) Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countries. In 2007, the United States had 2.4 practising physicians per 1,000 population, below the OECD average of 3.1. There were 10.6 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2007, which is slightly higher than the average of 9.6 across OECD countries. The number of acute care hospital beds in the United States in 2007 was 2.7 per 1 000 population, lower than the OECD average of 3.8 beds. As in most OECD countries, the number of hospital beds per capita has fallen over the past twenty-five years in the United States. This decline has coincided with a reduction in average length of stays in hospitals and an increase in day surgeries....


http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

How many of these people could afford insurance, but chose not to buy it? How many are here illegally? There are a ton of questions that need to be answered before we allow the government to take over our health care system.

I appreciate that you found the study from the news article, but I'm not going to do you the favor of finding that % of people who were insured but still faced financial difficulties, especially since even if you don't want to read the six page pdf, it's near the top of the news article and I quoted it for Claydon.

Here's a hint though: It's in the middle of the study you found.


Here is another fun link:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

I don't see how expanding the gov's health care liabilities is going to help solve our deficit problem. Hopefully the bond vigilantes will kill any chance of financing this bill.

Debt hawks from both parties want the plan to be deficit neutral. Even the Obama administration and their economic advisors who post optimistic estimates realize that fixing the healthcare system so that it stops hemorrhaging money is the only sustainable path.

I don't think any sane American wants a health plan that increases the long term trend of spending 16% of our GDP. Spreading an extra two trillion over ten years is relatively minute compared to the commitments to our financial system that you have claimed the government has an obligation to save.


I should also point out that the BK laws changed in 2005. So any comparison between 2001 and 2007 isn't a fair comparison.

I doubt that such minor details matter to you.

Since you're so anti-gotcha and jaded about what matters to me, I'd be open on how bankruptcy laws then would adjust to the conditions now. I'd even accept the estimated figures your source would provide... just to help explain the relevance of how unfair it is to compare between the two time periods and the impact it has on refuting the current findings.

[Archangel]

Whatever you say Fuld.

I've never said anything personally negative about you on these forums.

But since you mentioned it, it is getting really old, and your actions are very juvenile the way you manipulate my Rep, along with the Rep of others on here at your whim.

Maybe your not up to being an Administrator?

I can see if my 12 year old is interested in your administrator job. She does things like the stuff you're doing on here.

And with all that BS, we've wasted about a page talking about your immature issues.

Sorry folks.

Jesus fucking Christ, somebody allowed you to pollute the gene pool?

Lemme guess, she's 12 and still can't read or write...

[Hoser]

You'll just pay $250,000 in taxes.

You act like every single tax dollar is going to health care.

[Tar Heel]

its just fucking amazing to me.

somehow i have always kept coverage, employed, unemployed, fucking poor, you name it.

I have always had my own policy, and even recently when I had really bad neck problems I went to urgent care rather than going to the fucking emergency room where most dipshits go. You can be taken care of for about 90% less. Radiographs and MD visit was $200 before insurance.

My wife gets $50,000 of free medication every quarter from a evil pharm company, and has for nearly 7 years. Somehow, she has always had coverage, always taken care of.


Everyone has assholes and excuses for not taking care of themselves.


Get cancer and see what your insurance provider pays for. See if they cover the treatment that your doctor recommends. That's where the problem is. Serious illness in the family can bankrupt just about any middle class family even with insurance. That's why over half of the people that claimed medical bills as the reason for personal bankruptcy had health insurance. My father in law is a doctor and talks about this all the time how the treatment he wants to give his patient isn't covered by their health insurnace.

[Claydon]

Get cancer and see what your insurance provider pays for. See if they cover the treatment that your doctor recommends. That's where the problem is. Serious illness in the family can bankrupt just about any middle class family even with insurance. That's why over half of the people that claimed medical bills as the reason for personal bankruptcy had health insurance. My father in law is a doctor and talks about this all the time how the treatment he wants to give his patient isn't covered by their health insurnace.

You are correct, hence I have supplmental coverage for such things.

[Debo]

Which is the bullshit comparison: Mankow is comparing life expectancy, while the OECD discusses health expenditure per capita in detail. The article does mention life expectancy but it's only one detail, one paragraph, and not the main drive of the article.

I do not mention lifestyle indicators attached to healthcare. You're free to inject it in the debate, but don't strawman me into claiming it's a comparison I made.

But since we're going down into the details, the nitty gritty, here's what I'm talking about so you don't have to waste a single click.

Of course we spend more money on health care than other countries. We also spend more on defense, housing, food, clothing, cars, etc. Government run single-payer health care agencies contain their costs by limiting access to medical services. We don't have these problems so we incur more expenses.

Another important factor that you seem to be overlooking in your cost-benefit analysis is that the vast majority of health care R&D is performed (And paid for) here in the USA. We spend more because we create more. Would we be better off if we stopped spending money on drug R&D?

I won't even get into how other countries use their natural resources to subsidize their social welfare programs. I mean, bring externalities into the equation isn't fair.

It isn't like other countries don't have problems (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/15/england.dentists/index.html) of their own.

Pay attention, class is still in session:

Comparing infant mortality rates between countries is fraught with uncertainty—after all, it's hard to argue that every country's figures are reliable. But it's still worth asking what more we can do to stop babies from dying. Defined as death before one year of age, infant mortality frequently gets framed in the United States as a problem of insufficient health-care funding. In December, for example, a New York Times column (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F17FE3D540C728FDDAB0994DE4044 82) blamed it on the lack of a single-payer health insurer. However, a closer look reveals the counterintuitive possibility that high infant mortality in the United States might be the unintended side effect of increased spending on medical care.http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/03/infant_mortality.cfm

How about this study?

Evidence. Survey data suggest that there are very low waiting times for elective surgery in the U.S. Blendon et al. (2002) reported the percentage of respondents to a phone survey in 2001, who had experienced elective surgery in the last two years and who said they had waited longer than four months for elective surgery. It was found that 5% of patients had been waiting for at least 4 months in the United States, as opposed to 23% in Australia, 26% in New Zealand, 27% in Canada and 38% in the United Kingdom. Carroll et al. (1995) found that the percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary bypass who had been waiting for more than three months was 0% in U.S., 18.2% in Sweden, 46.7% in Canada, and 88.9% in the United Kingdom. Similarly, Coyte et al. (1994) found that surveyed patients in need of knee replacement had a median waiting time of three weeks in the United States and eight weeks in Canada (Ontario). http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/10/17256025.pdf

I wonder how our neighbors to the North are doing. Lets check in and find out...Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/cancer/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html

Ooooooooo'Canada

Consider the case of waiting lists. In 2008, the median wait time from general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist was 17.3 weeks in Canada. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the last decade or so, that wait time was 45 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997. It was 86 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 9.3 weeks back in 1993.


Canada's waiting lists are also, according to the available evidence, among the longest in the developed world. For example, a 2007 survey of individuals in seven nations, six of whom maintain universal access health insurance programs, published in the journal Health Affairs found that: - Canadians are more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, Germans, the Dutch, and New Zealanders, but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom; and were least likely among the six nations to wait less than one month for elective surgery; - Canadians are most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and are least likely to receive an appointment the same day or next day among the six universal access nations surveyed; and - Canadians are least likely to wait less than one hour and most likely to wait two hours or more for access to an emergency room among the six universal access nations surveyed.


That is hardly the sort of access you might expect from the developed world's second-most-expensive universal access health insurance system.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Health/Canadians+receive+poor+value+health+care+dollars/1584180/story.html

If you are tired of reading, check out these videos (http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/).

Here at home, we are taking the steps necessary to implement price caps on medical costs. As if mcare and mcaid don't already pay cost or below cost. Awesome.

The White House (http://topics.breitbart.com/White+House/) is asking Congress (http://topics.breitbart.com/Congress/) to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs.

A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs (http://topics.breitbart.com/health+care+costs/) and providing better care.



The proposal would allow an independent advisory board to recommend changes in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the president approved the recommendations, Congress could still vote to reject them altogether. But Congress could not approve some recommendations and reject others.


Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates vary from region to region. Key lawmakers often get involved in setting local rates, a practice the Obama administration plan would end.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99GD8QG2&show_article=1

The CBO came out and rained on Obama's health care parade today. A massive expansion in health care financed by the gov isn't free? Who knew?
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003168293

I appreciate that you found the study from the news article, but I'm not going to do you the favor of finding that % of people who were insured but still faced financial difficulties, especially since even if you don't want to read the six page pdf, it's near the top of the news article and I quoted it for Claydon.

Here's a hint though: It's in the middle of the study you found.

There are numerous variations of insurance policies out there. Simply saying that someone has insurance doesn't mean anything. Do they have a PPO? An HMO? A high-deductible plan? Minimum coverage? I pay the extra money for a PPO every month and I pay for disability insurance. These points are key because the study that you are citing states that they consider medical bills incurred due to being sick as part of the equation and they also include lost wages due to being sick in the equation. Insurance exists to cover these scenarios. They simply need to skip a night out on the town once a month and pick up a better insurance policy (Finance it however you want to. My point is that something as essential as disability coverage and solid health insurance are necessities, not luxuries. Find a way to pay for them).


Debt hawks from both parties want the plan to be deficit neutral. Even the Obama administration and their economic advisors who post optimistic estimates realize that fixing the healthcare system so that it stops hemorrhaging money is the only sustainable path.

I don't think any sane American wants a health plan that increases the long term trend of spending 16% of our GDP. Spreading an extra two trillion over ten years is relatively minute compared to the commitments to our financial system that you have claimed the government has an obligation to save.

Debt hawks? Those are extinct on Capital Hill. Right now people are simply trying to minimize the damage or completely de-rail it altogether. See my link to the CBO report that came out today.

Oh, you mean TARP (The half that was actually spent)? Too bad people are paying that back and the Treasury earned 12% on its warrents (http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/treasury-earns-12-return-on-first-few-tarp-banks-is-that-enough/814/).

If pitting a government run option against a private option is such a good idea, why shouldn't we implement this in every sector of our economy? We could have a gov run grocery store. A gov run movie theater. A gov run postal service...wait a minute... A gov run car company...son of a bitch...

My point is that we don't need a government option in health care, we need a system that has less government. Mcare and Mcaid already account for half of the medical payments in this country and that is why the market is so distorted. Creating the medical version or FRE and FNM is only going to make the problem worse.

Since you're so anti-gotcha and jaded about what matters to me, I'd be open on how bankruptcy laws then would adjust to the conditions now. I'd even accept the estimated figures your source would provide... just to help explain the relevance of how unfair it is to compare between the two time periods and the impact it has on refuting the current findings.

In 2005, the government made it more difficult to declare BK. This means that the 2001 numbers are diluted when compared to the 2007 numbers. Medical bills have always put some people into BK. Now it is one of the main drivers because people can't file bullshit BK cases like they could in the past.

I don't have a study to show you because I am not aware of one that exists. I just know that filing for BK has become much more difficult ever since the laws changed in 2005. But what do I know, I only deal with BKs on a daily basis.

If I was in charge, I would remove the employer based insurance system by giving every a tax credit so they can buy their own health insurance. Then, I would invoke the Commerce Clause and I would create a national health care market. I would scale back the expansion of Mcare, Mcaid and SCHIP with a phase out over the next 15 years. Basically, I would do the opposite of what we are doing now.