Why do the CONs want to withold Medical Care from those who need it?

[alatide]

Medical Debt Huge Bankruptcy Culprit
Study: It's Behind Six-In-Ten Personal Filings
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml


Most personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are caused by medical bills, reports Hattie Kauffman. Harry Smith talks asks HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius if health care reform will reduce personal costs.

 

[alatide]

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:
Results of a National Study
David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass; Department of Sociology, Ohio University, Athens; and Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Three quarters had health insurance.

So a universal health plan would not have helped these people. As many of us have said (and now you have proved), this is not the answer.

 

[NiteShift]

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:
Results of a National Study
David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass; Department of Sociology, Ohio University, Athens; and Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

Two of the authors of that study are founders of 'Physicians for a National Health Program', which is an organization dedicated to bringing us a single-payer national health program, so they are not impartial.

And if a single-payer program would prevent bankruptcy we'd expect to see less of it in Canada. But their bankruptcy rates are similar to our own.

 

[targus]

????

So Targus, you think the 4 authors of the study were oriented in their conclusion and that the time they spent on the analysis can be thrown away with a few " Or " and maybe " If " in this post ? I imagine if they came to these conclusions, there's a reason, an analysis before, some hours/weeks spent working on that, no ?

Is it so impossible/annoying to imagine it might be true ?

No, what I am saying is that the study does not support Alatide's conclusion that medical expenses were the cause of the bankruptcies.

BTW, I too have participated in the conduct of such studies at the University level in a related field - and yes, my experience was that many authors of such papers do indeed often skew the results to support their hypothesis. Very often there is a motivation to produce results which support a particular hypothesis in order to keep the Federal grant money coming. That is why one must read with a jaundiced eye.

And yes, those "or"s and "if"s are the difference between proof and speculation.

 

[targus]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. OK, maybe you won a debate point but what did you contribute? I'll back off and say that medical costs played an important role in 62% of personal bankruptcies. Now prove whatever point you're trying to make, if any.

No, I am sorry, but your source does not even support that medical costs played an important role in 62% of personal bankruptcies.

My point is that this thread and many arguements in this thread which you have created are supported by nothing other than your own mistaken opinions - much like Obama and his cadre.

 

[targus]

Medical Debt Huge Bankruptcy Culprit
Study: It's Behind Six-In-Ten Personal Filings
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml


Most personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are caused by medical bills, reports Hattie Kauffman. Harry Smith talks asks HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius if health care reform will reduce personal costs.

Thanks for getting my day started with a laugh.

This is the same study. :laugh:

Dude, you really need to start reading with some level of care.

 

[targus]

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:
Results of a National Study
David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass; Department of Sociology, Ohio University, Athens; and Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

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.

AGAIN - same study !!!

And I already addressed the flaws.

 

[rbell]

I realize that it's offensive...but there's a bumper sticker that is read, with white lettering, and it basically says:

"events of a scatological nature occur."


Here's the deal: It is not possible for the government to prevent bad stuff from happening. They can't stop all cases of catastrophic events from taking place in people's lives.

 

[alatide]

So a universal health plan would not have helped these people. As many of us have said (and now you have proved), this is not the answer.

Obviously, their medical insurance coverage was inaudiquate. Improving medical care in the US should be directed at this aspect as well as providing insurance for those who have none.

 

[RAdam]

Welfare is not now nor has ever been the answer. The welfare system is destroying our nation. Giving people money for nothing is a corrupting influence. For decades now the government has given a large amount of people money for doing absolutely nothing. Many of these same people have many kids in order to get even more money out of the government. The laziness instilled in them by not having to do anything in order to have money is passed onto their kids and so forth, and the problem increases. Now, today, we have a large percentage of the population holding their hands out wanting their piece of the pie without putting out any effort. So, in the wake of the failure of the welfare system, we want to now create a welfare medical system. Unbelievable. I work for my paycheck and for my insurance. I think everyone that is able to work should have to as well. If the government is going to take care of Johnny, at least put Johnny to work doing something. Letting Johnny sit on his tail doing nothing ruins him and his kids.

Now, some misguided Christians will say, "Jesus would support this free health care initiative." I respond by pointing to the bible. What does the bible teach? Laziness? Sit on your rear end and wait for someone to provide for you? No. It teaches hard work. God told Adam he was going to work for his food, laboring in the earth. The bible says the laborer is worthy of his hire. While I on a personal level am to be a free giver, the idea that Christianity should support a government handing out money to people for no services rendered on this level, such as the aforementioned welfare and health care systems, is just plain wrong and frankly I'm tired of seeing it used. Again, if the good ole USA government want to give Johnny health care, I say put him to work. Let's make him earn it - it'll do him and the government good that way.

 

[StefanM]

I think a major issue concerns small businesses and their employees.

Sometimes inadequate coverage has nothing to do with "hard work." Bottom line--in most cases, an employee of a small business is not going to have a benefits package comparable to an employee of a large corporation. This creates a significant competitive advantage for larger corporations in the labor market. When you consider that the larger corporations also benefit from economies of scale, you have several market forces to shift skilled workers away from small businesses. Sure, you can say "Go get a job in a big company," but that isn't a solution for the workforce as a whole.

In the long run, this system hinders entrepreneurship. At present, if I want to start my own business, not only do I have to address start-up costs, I have to factor in the need to obtain health insurance. If I have to get an individual policy, I either have to exhaust COBRA (which is cost-prohibitive for most), or risk being declined or excluded on preexisting conditions.

Additionally, having an employer-based health insurance system unnecessarily burdens employers with administrative costs and makes the prevailing market wage for a given position less clear, as the economic value of different benefits packages is not always readily available.

One thing that I would suggest should be immediately implemented is a tax deduction for individual health insurance policies apart from other itemized deductions. Self-employed individuals already get this deduction, and I see no reason why anyone (especially those without employer-based coverage) couldn't get this credit.

I think we need major health reform in the US. I'm not sure what plan will be the best in the long run, but we have medical and economic reasons to do something.

 

[RAdam]

But, they aren't talking about giving health insurance to those working, they are also talking about giving it to the welfare crowd. I'm sorry but that is unacceptable to me.

 

[StefanM]

But, they aren't talking about giving health insurance to those working, they are also talking about giving it to the welfare crowd. I'm sorry but that is unacceptable to me.

I'm not necessarily defending any of the plans in existence right now.

I have no problem extending health benefits in some way to the "welfare crowd" as you call it. I'm going to pay for it somehow in higher premiums or taxes for emergency treatment.

I just want to find a cost-effective way to do it.

I definitely understand (and support) the idea that those who are able to work should do so. However, we need to have a system that encourages work. Many low-paying jobs don't provide enough income to cover health insurance costs, but the income from these jobs disqualifies one from public plans.

My concern is more with the working poor and the lower middle class than with others. If you are wealthy, then you have no reason to go without high quality care. The upper middle class also has resources and/or benefits through their employers. The lower middle class and below come into problems.

 

[alatide]

Welfare is not now nor has ever been the answer. The welfare system is destroying our nation. Giving people money for nothing is a corrupting influence. For decades now the government has given a large amount of people money for doing absolutely nothing. Many of these same people have many kids in order to get even more money out of the government. The laziness instilled in them by not having to do anything in order to have money is passed onto their kids and so forth, and the problem increases. Now, today, we have a large percentage of the population holding their hands out wanting their piece of the pie without putting out any effort. So, in the wake of the failure of the welfare system, we want to now create a welfare medical system. Unbelievable. I work for my paycheck and for my insurance. I think everyone that is able to work should have to as well. If the government is going to take care of Johnny, at least put Johnny to work doing something. Letting Johnny sit on his tail doing nothing ruins him and his kids.

Now, some misguided Christians will say, "Jesus would support this free health care initiative." I respond by pointing to the bible. What does the bible teach? Laziness? Sit on your rear end and wait for someone to provide for you? No. It teaches hard work. God told Adam he was going to work for his food, laboring in the earth. The bible says the laborer is worthy of his hire. While I on a personal level am to be a free giver, the idea that Christianity should support a government handing out money to people for no services rendered on this level, such as the aforementioned welfare and health care systems, is just plain wrong and frankly I'm tired of seeing it used. Again, if the good ole USA government want to give Johnny health care, I say put him to work. Let's make him earn it - it'll do him and the government good that way.

It was President Clinton that imposed a work requirement to collect welfare. You're about 10 years behind.

 

[OldRegular]

It was President Clinton that imposed a work requirement to collect welfare. You're about 10 years behind.

You are about 2000 years behind.

1 Timothy 5:8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

2 Thessalonians 3:10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:12. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Incidentally Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to sign the Welfare Reform Bill passed by the Republican Congress.

 

[annsni]

Your claim that everyone has "access' to health care is a distortion. If free health care is available why don't you drop your insurance?

If socialized medicine is the answer, why do my friends in England pay for private insurance?

I still don't see an answer to this.

 

[Robert Snow]

But, they aren't talking about giving health insurance to those working, they are also talking about giving it to the welfare crowd. I'm sorry but that is unacceptable to me.

I don't see how it matters. We are paying for the health care for the "welfare crowd" now anyway. In fact, it is more expensive now because they get most of their care via the emergency room. With health care maybe some preventative medicine would prevent much of the expensive emergency care we are paying for now.

 

[alatide]

But, they aren't talking about giving health insurance to those working, they are also talking about giving it to the welfare crowd. I'm sorry but that is unacceptable to me.

Where did you get this idea? It's totally false.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't see how it matters. We are paying for the health care for the "welfare crowd" now anyway. In fact, it is more expensive now because they get most of their care via the emergency room. With health care maybe some preventative medicine would prevent much of the expensive emergency care we are paying for now.

This is an excuse not a reason.