Sad.

And they are not alone. There are so many stories like theirs.

Boo-Hoo

So, because of stories like this I should let the government run my healthcare, I think not.

"So, because of stories like this I should let the government run my healthcare, I think not."

You may think not but fortunately the majority thinks yes.

I should let the government run my healthcare

You planning on turning down Medicare when you turn 65? Somehow I doubt it.

BTW, what part of the bill coming out of congress says government runs healthcare?

"...what part of the bill coming out of congress says government runs healthcare?"

Much like a brain, he has no fucking clue.

#2 | Posted by chickenrancher: So, because of stories like this I should let the government run my healthcare, I think not.

It's a public insurance option. The government will not be controlling anyone's health care. But your costs for the same health care you have will go down.

Chickenrancher:

The insurance industry is denying coverage to plump four-month-old babies and dropping people scheduled to have necessary surgery the next day. They're calling broken wrists a "pre-existing condition" and denying the claim.

You ought to be hoping to Hell the government will run your health care, because the insurance companies are doing a spectacularly rotten job of it.

I should let the government run my healthcare

If Bush was president, Chickenplaucker would let Dubya do open heart surgery on him.

So, because of stories like this I should let the government run my healthcare, I think not.

#2 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-10-13 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

LOL, no you're right: you should let companies that are driven by profit and short term shareholder value run the health care system in your country.

So what is President Obama and the Democratic Party majorities going to do about this?

"you should let companies that are driven by profit and short term shareholder value run the health care system in your country."

As opposed as corrupt and wasteful government seeking control over you as well as greed to obtain more of your income in taxes and fees. Also see how many are turned down by Medicare.

One is still ahead with private options rather than one public one.

So what is President Obama and the Democratic Party majorities going to do about this?

Sadly not much.

Why aren't the auto and mortgage loans deemed to be the cause of these peoples' bankruptcies?

Ask the author of the study.

I would hazard a guess that auto loans and mortgages are secured by assets whereas medical bills are not.

"I would hazard a guess that auto loans and mortgages are secured by assets whereas medical bills are not."

Your guess makes no sense. The bottom line is that something caused these people to file bankruptcy, the most likely cause being high monthly bills they cannot afford. If you have a loan for $150K on your house, a loan for $15K on your car, and $5K in medical bills, what is the cause of your bankruptcy?

A few things come to mind on this article... they CHOSE to drop coverage because of the cost. Did they not have anything else to cut? Cable? Phone? Cell? Internet? Why do we allow people to escape their debt by filing bankruptcy -- thus shifting the cost of some medical treatments from those who receive it to those who don't? And if the cost of treating this person for the 3rd bout of cancer is going to bankrupt them, instead of trying to figure out why things are so expensive and working to lower the cost, why don't we come together as a country and instead bankrupt everyone?

Have to love what passes for logic from the left. I don't mind you bleeding heart liberals... I just wish you would try and use your God-given brains occasionally.

"I would hazard a guess that auto loans and mortgages are secured by assets whereas medical bills are not."

Lenders did or should have done credit checks, employment and income checks before they made the loans for these items. The people that bought them probably were able to afford them....until they got sick....the we let them sink into bankruptcy due to expensive medical care.....and the righties who want to preserve our failed system try to pretend that it wasn't the medical costs that bankrupted them. Of course it was, until they got sick most of them were paying their payments like the rest of us. If I were to get seriously ill I would probably become bankrupt too and I have health insurance but co-pays, prescriptions, etc. can eat up all of my discretionary income pretty damn quickly. Hell, if I lost my job and then got sick....
I dare say most posters on this site would be bankrupt too if they lost their job and then got sick no matter how much of a pompous holier than thou ass they are.

Again, Danni's post ignores the facts. For most bankruptcy filers, $5K in medical bills is the least of your problems. If you owe money for a house and car, your payments on those items will likely be at least $1,000 per month. If you owe $5,000 in medical bills, the worst that can happen is that you are sued, a judgment is against you for that amount, and then collection efforts are initiated against you, which will likely result in a monthly repayment plan or wage garnishment that amounts to far less than $1,000 per month. So if you have monthly bills that far exceed what you're paying for medical bills, why say that the medical bills are what "caused" the bankruptcy?

Except that you say that payments on their houses and cars are necessarily too high without any real proof of that. $1000.00 per month for house and car is pretty low by today's standards. In S. Florida it would take $1000. just for a rental on a fairly small home. You seem to think that poor judgement has to necessarily be the culprit because you don't want to admit that high cost of health care is what tipped the scales for most people. Your argument is partisan not logical.

I intentionally low-balled the figures. If they are higher than that, it proves my point even more that THAT is what caused the bankruptcy, and not the medical bills.

You seem to think that poor judgement has to necessarily be the culprit because you don't want to admit that high cost of health care is what tipped the scales for most people.

I said nothing about poor judgment. I said that most bankruptcy filings involve a number of large bills that people cannot afford to pay, which far exceed a $5,000 unsecured claim for medical bills. That there are larger bills would tend to indicate that those bills are what caused the bankruptcy, not the $5,000 claim for medical bills. Do you understand?

All you are saying Joe is that people with health insurance also need to have savings high enough to cover the costs of a major illness which could be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Most people don't have the income to save that much.
What you are intentionally ignoring is that these people had health insurance, it shouldn't bankrupt people to get sick if they have health insurance.
There is something very wrong with a system that allows that to happen.

If you owe $5,000 in medical bills, the worst that can happen is that you are sued, a judgment is against you for that amount, and then collection efforts are initiated against you, which will likely result in a monthly repayment plan or wage garnishment that amounts to far less than $1,000 per month.

This is your advice to your clients?

I note that that study was published in June 2007, just before the housing market went south. While housing foreclosures don't necessarily cause bankruptcy, they are close to it. Divorce is another common reason for bankruptcy.

While liberals may think this is a good argument for a federal takeover. It makes a case that federal expenses will mushroom if they nationalize health insurance. If not, they are going to have to do some serious rationing. Mr. Elder would be screwed.

"This is your advice to your clients?"

Hey! Lay off, Joe, Taxman! He gives the best $25.37 an hour legal advice money can buy.

All you are saying Joe is that people with health insurance also need to have savings high enough to cover the costs of a major illness which could be in the tens of thousands of dollars

No, I'm not saying anything about anyone with health insurance. Why are you broadening the discussion? We are talking about the reliability of this study.

"Hey! Lay off, Joe, Taxman! He gives the best $25.37 an hour legal advice money can buy."

That's fucking robbery. Typical shyster, always looking to overcharge his clients.

This is your advice to your clients?

No. It is a worst-case scenario used to illustrate that $5,000 in medical bills likely results in a lower monthly payment (and therefore a lower burden leading to bankruptcy) than home and car payments.

The bottom line is that something caused these people to file bankruptcy, the most likely cause being high monthly bills they cannot afford. If you have a loan for $150K on your house, a loan for $15K on your car, and $5K in medical bills, what is the cause of your bankruptcy?

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-13 12:27 PM

Well Joe, if they were making the mortgage payments and the auto loan payments and once the medical bills hit pushed them into bankruptcy, I would say the medical bills.

5,000 in medical bills likely results in a lower monthly payment

How many doctors and hospital offer monthly payment terms?

All I have ever seen is payment in 30days in full.

Bankruptcy is underrated. You make a phone call to a lawyer, and it all goes away.

But I have a better idea: let's put all these bills on the US government, with its AAA credit rating, paid for will money borrowed from the Chinese.

During the election, housing was causing most bankruptcies. Did we suddenly get much sicker since October or has everyone already lost their house?

"All I have ever seen is payment in 30days in full."

Um, have you ever seen a hospital bill?
Sure a small bill will be due in full but even a couple of hundred and they will offer payment plans.
This has been the case with me and everyone i have ever talked to about it, this is the case as i have been told by a friend who work in billing at a hospital. Even the last time i went to a doctor, with a bill under $150 they offered a payment plan if i would have wanted it.

Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-13 01:21 PM | Reply Reminds me of Bush Sr at the grocery checkout

How many doctors and hospital offer monthly payment terms?

Many.

All I have ever seen is payment in 30days in full.

And if you don't pay, and they want to spend the money to sue you, you will eventually work out a monthly payment with a lawyer or a collections agency, and it will not be as high as your mortgage and car payment.

Um, have you ever seen a hospital bill?

Yes I have, otherwise I would not have said what I did.

All say "Payment due in full upon receipt".

"Yes I have"

And how is doctor nick doing?

In fact after a surgery I received one for anesthesia for $2,895 due in 30 days.

If people have organs they can't afford to take care of, why should we be forced to bail them out? It's not like they'r an airline or aircraft or weapons manufacturer. Let's see some personal responsibility here people*. If you can't take keep those cancer cells in line, that's just the way God planned it.

The Right

* Personal responsibility excludes old farts on Medicare and elected Republicans.

Many times those are EOB's or Explanation of Benefits. If you look at it, you will see "do not pay" at the bottom of it. We get calls from patients often wondering about the "bill" when they thought insurance covered it.

It's not like they'r an airline or aircraft or weapons manufacturer.

You forgot the banks.

Many times those are EOB's or Explanation of Benefits.

No, this was a bill. The anesthesiologist did not participate with my insurance, therefore I had to pay and then apply for reimbursement from my insurance.

I have seent he EOB's and am quite familiar with them.

As opposed as corrupt and wasteful government seeking control over you as well as greed to obtain more of your income in taxes and fees. Also see how many are turned down by Medicare.

One is still ahead with private options rather than one public one.

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2009-10-13 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:
You know msgt, our systme is not perfect, but it ensures that every citizen in canada has access to health care, regardless of income, regardless of whether or not they have a pre-existing condition, or a recurring disease such as cancer.

It's not about control, it's not about corruption, it's about common decency and logic: a private, for profit insurance company loses profit when they offer full treatment, they lose profit when they have too many clients making claims...in other words, they lose profit when they give their clients what they are paying for: coverage in case of sickness, disease or accidents.

The system you are defending turns down over 35% of people that apply for coverage, cancel coverage for recurring problems, makes it impossible for lower income families to have proper coverage, and, as the article demonstrates, is the #1 reason for personal bankruptcies in your country. That alone should be a call to action for change.

Did you get the money back or did the insurance deny your claim?

"No. It is a worst-case scenario used to illustrate that $5,000 in medical bills likely results in a lower monthly payment (and therefore a lower burden leading to bankruptcy) than home and car payments."

Huh??? Worst case scenario????
Hardly, more like a best case scenario.

From the article:

"What happened next would send shock waves through the Elder household.

"As I'm recuperating, I receive $21,000 of bills that I was responsible for," Leslie Elder said. Under the Elders' policy with Nationwide they did, in fact, owe so much, in part because of rising health care costs, and in part because their deductible was now so high."

there were only 1,117,771 filings in 2008 according to this source:

Danni, are you retarded? Receiving $21,000 in bills that ultimately end up on a monthly repayment plan is STILL a lower monthly burden than the average mortgage payment.

Nanc would you file for bankruptcy if something catastrophic happened and you couldn't pay for it? let's say your husband got cancer?

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-13 01:45 PM

Joe my family member received a heart transplant and she now owes over 150K

She wishes she had insurance but was working through a temp service that didn't provide it. She is fucked. She can't even rent a decent place to live because her credit is fucked from bankruptcy.

"Danni, are you retarded? Receiving $21,000 in bills that ultimately end up on a monthly repayment plan is STILL a lower monthly burden than the average mortgage payment."

Great then, we have a perfect health care system. Get sick and you just have to start paying for the rest of your life.

#48 - that depends upon whether they'd make a deal on a payment plan or not. otherwise they could attach a portion of our property and get the cash when/if we go to sell it - we don't bank on ifs.

Jackass, I never said that people can have large medical bills. My argument is that saying anyone with $5,000 in medical bills filed bankruptcy "because of" medical bills is intentionally over-inclusive.

can't

#49 - some people come out smelling like roses on the other side of a bankruptcy.

Great then, we have a perfect health care system

Why do you keep changing the subject? The point is whether the study, which claims that 62% of bankrupt individual filed "because of medical bills," is an accurate one. You seem incapable of addressing the faulty terms in the study, and instead keep talking about "our healthcare system," which is not being addressed here.

approximately 700,000 bankruptcies cannot be the issue that pushes this healthcare through - they just passed the baucus through, however.

"She can't even rent a decent place to live because her credit is fucked from bankruptcy."

I went to a health care reform rally and one of the speakers was a woman who had received a liver transplant a few years ago. Everything was fine because when she was sick (before the transplant) she was on disability and got Medicare. However, when she "recovered" she lost her disability, only problem was that the anti-rejection drugs cost $5,000 per month. So, basicly she had to impoverish herself so that she could receive Medicaid in order to stay alive.

Imagine you are in a car that is accelerating into a brick wall. That metaphor sums up Washington's spending as it heads into default. It's fascinating how liberals always brush aside the money issues.

only problem was that the anti-rejection drugs cost $5,000 per month. So, basicly she had to impoverish herself so that she could receive Medicaid in order to stay alive.

#57 | Posted by danni

Danni my family member is in the same boat. You basically have to make below minimum wage to qualify. Working is almost impossible because she gets tired to easy.

Imagine you are in a car that is accelerating into a brick wall. That metaphor sums up Washington's spending as it heads into default. It's fascinating how liberals always brush aside the money issues.

#58 | Posted by Ray

Put more Americans to work raising the tax base. Stop sending jobs overseas. We need some protectionism. Oh yeah get out of the 2 wars.

"The point is whether the study, which claims that 62% of bankrupt individual filed "because of medical bills," is an accurate one."

Considering the fact that they weren't in bankruptcy before they had the medical bills it sort of makes sense to me. Had they not become ill and needed to run up medical bills they wouldn't be in bankruptcy. That's pretty simple stuff there.
You want to complicate and pretend that the expenses they already had but were managing ok are somehow to blame and it just isn't so.
Actually though, it's like arguing semantics which some here are so happy to do, I'm not one though.

"Considering the fact that they weren't in bankruptcy before they had the medical bills it sort of makes sense to me"

They weren't in bankruptcy before incurring any other expenses (house, car) either. That is terrible logic, even for you.

"Imagine you are in a car that is accelerating into a brick wall."

Building and maintaining the largest military force in the world without the taxes to pay for it is like a car accelerating into a brick wall, repealing the Bush and Reagan tax cuts would be like applying the brakes.

Joe seems to think that these people should have hundreds of thousands set aside just in case they get sick.

"They weren't in bankruptcy before incurring any other expenses (house, car) either. That is terrible logic, even for you."

That is perfect logic. You just don't want to view it that way for your own reasons but they aren't based on logic. You could prove the logic arithmetically in an equation showing how they were meeting expenses for a certain amount of time until "X" was introduced which caused their budget to break. "X" would be the medical bills. Therefore, "X" caused the bankruptcy which wouldn't have occurred had it not been introduced.
Your logic seems to be that somehow when they bought a house and a car they should have anticipated illness and not bought a house or a car so they could pay for the unexpected medical expenses. If we all operated that way the country would be in a permanent depression, most of us would be homeless and unemployed.

"Joe seems to think that these people should have hundreds of thousands set aside just in case they get sick."

It's simply irresponsible not to. I know I have hundreds of thousands just waiting for my illness. Oh, and I have a bridge for sale too.

"repealing the Bush and Reagan tax cuts would be like applying the brakes."

But when you add a supercharger and the gas pedal is still to the floor you will only boil your brake fluid and liquefy the pads.

"But when you add a supercharger and the gas pedal is still to the floor you will only boil your brake fluid and liquefy the pads."

So hey, don't even bother trying to apply the brakes????
We have huge debt, we need to pay it down, we can't with the present tax revenue so we need to raise more taxes. Oh, we could reduce some spending but not nearly enough to even balance the budget without higher taxes on the wealthy and everyone knows it. I think it is dishonest to complain about the deficit and the debt without also talking about taxes the way both Reagan and Bush 1 were willing to do.

No. It is a worst-case scenario used to illustrate that $5,000 in medical bills likely results in a lower monthly payment (and therefore a lower burden leading to bankruptcy) than home and car payments.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-13 01:04 PM | Reply |

No one seemed to point out your "worst" case is awfully rosey. A whopping 5k in medical bills? LOL.

Someone I know who just got treated for cancer is currently staring down a $70,000 bill.

Imagine you are in a car that is accelerating into a brick wall. That metaphor sums up Washington's spending as it heads into default. It's fascinating how liberals always brush aside the money issues.

#58 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-13 01:57 PM | Reply |

Let the "fiscal conservatives" worry about that on they're next run.

They weren't in bankruptcy before incurring any other expenses (house, car) either. That is terrible logic, even for you.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-13 02:07 PM | Reply |

Face it you got owned. This is the simple logic that you refuse to accept. Your example is entirely laughable.

Lets be real 5k in costs? you have no fucking clue what so ever. You got the 150k and the 15k for the house/car right. But 5k in medical bills? What fucking crack are you smoking? No one is going bankrupt on a whopping 5k of medical bills. What does that pay for nowadays? The ambulance ride.

Joe seems to think that these people should have hundreds of thousands set aside just in case they get sick.

When did I ever suggest that? My point has been that $5,000 in medical bills is not necessarily the "cause" of your bankruptcy just because it is listed in your filing as one of many claims against you. I have never suggested that anyone should be able to afford exorbitant medical bills - only that as a percentage of their overall credit burden, $5K is nothing and should not be considered the cause of a bankruptcy filing.

Someone I know who just got treated for cancer is currently staring down a $70,000 bill.

Tell them not to worry, all they have to do is put up with debt collectors calling every day until it gets to a collections attorney, then they will be sued, have to take off work to go to defend themselves, they will lose that, their credit will be ruined then they can get into a great payment plan and all will be fine.

$5K is nothing

Tell that to someone that does not have it.

BTW, $5,000 was the starting point for the analysis....

On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

Got an extra $20k lying around to help them out?

No one seemed to point out your "worst" case is awfully rosey. A whopping 5k in medical bills? LOL.

Have you read the article, or the thread? You're making my point for me. A mere $5,000 in medical bills was all it took for the authors of this "study" to say that your medical bills caused your bankruptcy.

No one is going bankrupt on a whopping 5k of medical bills.

My point exactly. You are a fucking fool.

On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

And those averages likely skyrocketed by people with medical bills in the hundreds of thousands, who actually did file bankruptcy "because of medical bills." Doesn't change the fact that anyone with $5K was also considered to have filed because of medical bills, and that the bar was intentionally set low to make a case for healthcare reform.

Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

That is the really scary statistic in the article.

See how much $5000 is when you earn $10 per hour and pay $800 rent and maybe $200 car payment, $150 car insurance, oh maybe $300 child care expenses...etc. For some $5000 is nothing but for others it is a huge amount.

"It's fascinating how liberals always brush aside the money issues."

Like when they say "deficits don't matter."
What???
That wasn't a liberal but a conservative Republican???
Hmmmm

Joe, you are taking a simplistic view for the $5,000....

the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.

So it was not just $5,000 as the sole factor in the study.

See how much $5000 is when you earn $10 per hour and pay $800 rent and maybe $200 car payment, $150 car insurance, oh maybe $300 child care expenses...etc. For some $5000 is nothing but for others it is a huge amount.

That doesn't matter to Joe.

See how much $5000 is when you earn $10 per hour and pay $800 rent and maybe $200 car payment, $150 car insurance, oh maybe $300 child care expenses...etc.

Again, the $5,000 will likely wind up in collections where you will work out a monthly payment arrangement. And unless that monthly payment exceeds your other bills, your other bills are still the greater burden.

So it was not just $5,000 as the sole factor in the study.

$5,000 was enough to say you filed because of medical bills. Period. The fact that other factors were also used to say you filed because of medical bills as well does not change that having $5,000 in bills was considered to be enough on its own.

"your other bills are still the greater burden."

At $10.oo per hour the other bills are minimum living expenses. People with income that low have no "extra" money to pay even if you set up a payment plan, no what usually will happen is that they will begin garnishing wages and force some poor person go go hungry, without electricity, homeless, whatever.

$5,000 was enough to say you filed because of medical bills. Period.

Reading is fundamental. Try it.

Try it yourself, dumbfuck. The fact that other factors were also considered to be a cause of bankruptcy does not mean that those factors were required for $5K in medical bills to be considered the cause of bankruptcy. $5K in medical bills alone was enough to be considered the cause.

"So hey, don't even bother trying to apply the brakes"

Here is an idea, steer away from the wall.

"We have huge debt, we need to pay it down, we can't with the present tax revenue so we need to raise more taxes."

As profits goes down so does tax revenue. To begin to think that raising taxes has no ill effects is asinine. You seem to think the those you consider wealthy are atm's that do not withdraw from your account regardless of how much cash you take from them. Think about it, what happens when you tax many you consider wealthy into middle class? Where does that money come from then? What happens when the wealthy stop spending as much, what happens to the benefit they have on the economy? By a huge margin they spend the most on luxuries, do you honestly think that tax hikes will not impact that entire industry and who do you think depends on that industry?
Aside from that i assume you have no problem with redistribution of wealth but many of us find it to be morally atrocious. You do not steal from one person to give it to another you know that is wrong so why would you want the government to do the same kind of thing?
The wealthy do not own the rest of us anything more then the rest of us pay, they are citizens just like us, they enjoy the same and in most cases less in the way of public services then we do. They are responsible for an awful lot of philanthropy, they are responsible for an awful lot of the economy, why bite the hand that feeds? Would you advocate for a sliding scale on the cost of bread? It is easy to incite class warfare, to villainize the rich. Countless times before we have seen it in history, i don't want to spoil the movie for you but it always ends badly.

People with income that low have no "extra" money to pay even if you set up a payment plan, no what usually will happen is that they will begin garnishing wages and force some poor person go go hungry, without electricity, homeless, whatever.

You are full of shit. The law does not allow a garnishment that exceeds 25% of your disposable income. That means a set aside for necessary items like food, shelter, electricity and clothing.

"$5K in medical bills alone was enough to be considered the cause."

That's 5K on top of any debt they already owe. It isn't like it was the only debt they had.

"You are full of shit. The law does not allow a garnishment that exceeds 25% of your disposable income."

Hey, I'm not a lawyer so you don't have to be rude.
If what you are saying is true then a person with a very low income could never be forced to pay, I find that hard to believe.

Try it yourself, dumbfuck.

Look up the definition of "or".

"What happens when the wealthy stop spending as much, what happens to the benefit they have on the economy?"

I feel something trickling down my leg.

"Think about it, what happens when you tax many you consider wealthy into middle class?"

If they are business owners they probably invest more into the business to avoid paying more taxes, that creates more jobs. It's how we built our economy. It's why wages basicly stagnated with Reagan, companies stopped expanding because the taxes were so low there was no incentive. Play the stock market and pay a maximum of 15%. Who'd buy new trucks, equipment, etc.????
Get it through your head, Supply Side Economics has now been debunked, it is bull shit, it created our depression. It is ruining this country just like it has ruined every economy it has been tried in.

If what you are saying is true then a person with a very low income could never be forced to pay, I find that hard to believe.

Not if they want to go through life never being able to get a car loan, rent an apartment or get a job.

They would need to file bankruptcy to clear the record. That is why medical issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy.

BTW, Joe is getting ornery because he is wrong. He is going to make one hell of a litigator if he acts like this in the courtroom.

"Your honor... you are a dumbfuck."

"What happens when the wealthy stop spending as much, what happens to the benefit they have on the economy?"

actually the spending of the wealth doesn't change that much because of taxes, they live the way they want to live and don't spend all of their income whether you tax them low or tax them high. It effects choices in how they invest their money though.

Think about it, what happens when you tax many you consider wealthy into middle class? Where does that money come from then? What happens when the wealthy stop spending as much, what happens to the benefit they have on the economy?

The 1950's and 1960's must have been real shit holes economically. What were tax rates then? 91% - 70%?

Look up the definition of "or".

Look it up yourself. I'll explain it to you one more time. If the study says that "factor A" OR "factor B" is enough to mean that you filed bankruptcy because of medical bills, then having SOLELY FACTOR "A" is enough for the study to conclude that you filed bankruptcy because of medical bills.

That's 5K on top of any debt they already owe. It isn't like it was the only debt they had.

That is, again, my point.

"Get it through your head, Supply Side Economics has now been debunked, "

But socialism has gotten all A's from history.

You just don't get it do you?
It is all about balance, take to much and you have a problem, on the other hand take to little and you also have a problem. But if you think we are taking to little then why do we fluctuate between the highest and second highest corporate tax rate in the world? Where do you think the wealthy get their money? And yes we can cut expenditures to even out the deficit but that would require services to be cut and people to take more care of themselves. Even eliminating waste would make a dent in the problem, not that waste can be completely eliminated.

Aside from that the government has shown itself to use more money then it takes in no matter what. There are always programs and projects that money can be spent on.

Supply side economics has not been debunked no matter how many times maddow telly you it has. The implications of that economic strategy are far reaching and very intricate. It did allow more money to go to the owners but also to boost the infrastructure of many of these companies. It allowed more disposable income that helped boost other industries such as the technology industry. The technology boom could not have happened if not for consumers to drive the demand up, the consumers could not drive up demand without more disposable income. The technology boom was responsible in a big way for one of the fastest growing economies in our history. That may have well have been slowed if there was not the excess caused by the tax drops.
Now, hear me out on this. I am not blaming only clinton for the recession but i do believe his tax hikes did play an important role in the stagnation of our economy in the late nineties and early 2000's and ultimately helped us into recession.
Now you can recite how supply side economics are "debunked" till the cows come home but you need to understand that things are not as simple as finding a villain to blame for all our problems. Economics are an immensely complicated beast with an unlimited amount of different forces playing on the outcome. To draw such a simple conclusion as "reagan did it" can only be described as juvenile.

We have huge debt, we need to pay it down, we can't with the present tax revenue so we need to raise more taxes. Oh, we could reduce some spending but not nearly enough to even balance the budget without higher taxes on the wealthy and everyone knows it. I think it is dishonest to complain about the deficit and the debt without also talking about taxes the way both Reagan and Bush 1 were willing to do.

#68 | Posted by danni

Danni,

Not trying to pick on you in particular, but I find it fucking amazing what passes for thought on the left. We can't cut spending? Says who? What kind of ignorance is that?

Kind of like someone who is bankrupt arguing "I know I have bills, but I can't stop shopping, couldn't give up the driver, the maid, the cook or the private plane". How fucking retarded.

We can, and should, stop everything that isn't constitutional. Close every base outside the US. Amend the constitution to allow a standing army or end it. End social security, welfare, dept of ed, etc. Bring all the soldiers and sailors and money home from the far-flung bases. Let the rest of the world defend themselves for a change. They want our help, let them pay for it.

Get the fuck out of the UN. Allow the states to arrest and hold for deportation anyone who is not here legally. Defend the fucking border. Repeal the income tax are replace it with a national sales tax. Force the country to live within its means. Force the country to apply a fixed percentage of the taxes to reducing the national debt.

Take the same approach to the out of control gov't spending as you would to a family that has 2 houses, 2 cars, eat out every meal, take a couple of vacations a year and then bitch cause they aren't getting making enough money and demand a raise. Its called bankrupt. Make the cuts now, while we have a country, or wait until the system collapses and see what replaces it. If I am any guess, whatever replaces our republic will not be nearly as friendly to those no-tax-paying-scum.

End social security, welfare, dept of ed, etc.

#100 | Posted by 1libertarian

So are you saying let the elderly eat cake?

"End social security, welfare, dept of ed, etc.

#100 | Posted by 1libertarian

Before that, let's tear up the roads leading to your home, John Galt. You can rebuild them yourself.

At $10.oo per hour the other bills are minimum living expenses. People with income that low have no "extra" money to pay even if you set up a payment plan, no what usually will happen is that they will begin garnishing wages and force some poor person go go hungry, without electricity, homeless, whatever.

really?

source?

they are just too poor to overspend on stuff?

LOL

Joe my family member received a heart transplant and she now owes over 150K

She wishes she had insurance but was working through a temp service that didn't provide it. She is fucked.

#49 | Posted by jackass
* * * * *

No, that would be if she didn't get a new heart transplant.

So is your answer that the taxpayers should be footing the tab for it? Just out of curiosity, how much do you think the transplant would have cost, then?

Suits me though. Send Corky the bill.

RIR taxpayers did foot the bill for it. She can't pay 150k back. She doesn't even work anymore. We are going o pay one way or another. Might as well not ruin folks credit in the process.

Your right, we shouldn't ruin their credit... think how much this unemployed person with a bad heart that is unable to work could rack up in credit card bills before they filled bankruptcy otherwise.

Good move. Fuck the country, but save her credit rating so she can fuck the country again. Liberal logic at its best.

She couldn't even rent an apartment because it ruined her credit so bad. She wasn't an irresponsible wretch that spent like a drunken sailor. She just happened to have a bad heart.

How is her health now? Is the new heart working out?

Eberly she is alive so that is better than the alternative. She can't work or really get around much without tired but she is happy to be alive.

Medical Debts Cause Most Bankruptcies

this falls under the category of
"No Shit Sherlock"
And
"Thank you Captain Obvious"

Do they really?

"$5,000 was enough to say you filed because of medical bills. Period." (and other posts along this vein)
Are you seriously that thick?
It isn't just the medical bills. Don't you think it conceivable that before the hospital expenses there was a time of job loss? Don't you think that the hospital stay and recuperation was job loss?
Don't you think that this could contribute to falling behind on car payments, house payments etc.?
I speak from experience. After nearly two years of being told by my doctors that there was nothing wrong, I was just tired (some even thought lazy) I was rushed in for a quadruple bypass. (My second in 15 years) If they had done it when I went in initially, instead of stalling for insurance reasons I would have not lost so much work during that two years. Then almost a year of convalescing (with complications) of no work. Don't any of you geniuses think that that may have contributed to my (and others like me)financial issues?
Your compassion is overwhelming.
Fucktards

You're right Billy. We should pay for it.

Send the bill to Corky.

If they had done it when I went in initially, instead of stalling for insurance reasons I would have not lost so much work during that two years.
* * * *

Yes, because all the doctors I know like to tell people not to have expensive surgeries that they can be well paid for, that day, whatever insurance has to say about it.

In other news, I know a lot of mechanics who tell people their cars are fine, even though they need expensive repairs.

BillyChan
sounds like your lucky to be here,man

BillyChan

I second BruceAz. Luckily your brain wasn't fried like RightIsRight's.

"You're right Billy. We should pay for it.
Send the bill to Corky." and -
"Yes, because all the doctors I know like to tell people not to have expensive surgeries that they can be well paid for, that day, whatever insurance has to say about it.
In other news, I know a lot of mechanics who tell people their cars are fine, even though they need expensive repairs."
That second post doesn't even make sense.
Everything with you is money isn't it?
There's no other way to put this RIGHTISRONG - you're just a dick. Plain and simple.

"Money will buy you a fine dog, but only love can make it wag its tail"
-----Richard Friedman-----

Oh, and thanks TIMEX and BRUCEAZ
I live another day to be a thorn in the side of the "Dicks" here and elsewhere. (You know who you are)

I live another day to be a thorn in the side of the "Dicks" here and elsewhere. (You know who you are)

Me too. LOL

For decades this has been the case.

Funny, nothing in here about the #1 cause of business bancruptcy.

Nothing new here.

"For decades this has been the case."

Link?

"For decades this has been the case."

Link?

#121 | Posted by Danforth

Are you challenging a lib?

Tsk tsk!

:-)

Be careful Danny.

Gitmboy can electricute you just by shaking your hand.

He also sets his own fractures and has been tossed out of a moving car 3 times.

#68 Danni> We have huge debt, we need to pay it down, we can't with the present tax revenue so we need to raise more taxes.

Wow, sure is amazing how you tap-danced right around fiscal responsibility on the part of the Prez and Congress!

> Oh, we could reduce some spending but not nearly enough to even balance the budget without higher taxes on the wealthy and everyone knows it.

Why 'not nearly enough'? Is there something sacred about all those zero's in the federal budget? Can I claim the same thing on a personal level ... no sense cutting spending when I just need a huge cash infusion, hopefully funded by working taxpayers?

The spending is the main problem. It has been that way for the past few decades. Even you should realize it by now. Maybe I could borrow your 'everybody knows it' phrase to add weight to my argument. LOL!

Hey, isn't it time for you to trot out your own tired, discredited phrase that Reagan's tax cuts caused the ballooning deficits? I haven't seen you post that in a few days and you're about overdue for it. ;^)

"You may think not but fortunately the majority thinks yes."
#3 | Posted by danni

You mean the majority of foolish Democrats. Not the majority of American citizens.

Everything with you is money isn't it?
There's no other way to put this RIGHTISRONG - you're just a dick. Plain and simple.
* * * *

Fair enough Chan. I'm saying that you're lying when you said that the doctors delayed your surgery for insurance reasons. And considering that Medicare rejects treatment at twice the rate private insurers do, it takes a special kind of stupid to think you would be in better hands if a bureaucrat is deciding on whether to perform surgery, as opposed to a surgeon with a big house payment due in two weeks. So, yes, I think you're lying.

But that would put you in good company here, among your libbie pals. They almost all lie, as they go along.

" it takes a special kind of stupid to think you would be in better hands if a bureaucrat is deciding on whether to perform surgery"

RightIsRight

WTF do you call the folks at the insurance companies who make these decisions? I call them 'bureaucrats' whose job is to deny as many procedures as possible.

WTF do you call the folks at the insurance companies who make these decisions? I call them 'bureaucrats' whose job is to deny as many procedures as possible.

#127 | Posted by Timex

Do some research.

Compare and contrast the approval rate of government-controlled care vs. private-controlled care globally.

You will be surprised.

Right now Danforth would love to torture me for disagreeing with his orthodoxy if only he had the power to stifle opposition viewpoint that the feds see with whatever hidden manifestation of the 'fairness' doctrine' they muster.

I call them 'bureaucrats' whose job is to deny as many procedures as possible.

#127 | Posted by Timex
* * * *

If that's true, then they're not doing their jobs nearly as well as their counterparts in Medicare and the VA. The denials there are 2-1 what the private sector is. Pikers.

Nice talking point, though. You sound like an MSNBC/Air America listener. So, please, don't let facts get in your way. Olberman's on!

I wonder how many bankruptcies are caused by tax bills.

RIGHTISRONG...
I wish I was lying, (I wouldn't have this constant pain in my leg where my veins were removed, and my chest wouldn't itch like mad, where the wires holding my chest cavity together are)but I am not.
I never said it was "one doctors" fault. The truth is, my insurance (I actually had some at the time) does tests incrementally. To pay the least amount possible they drag their feet and I think it is easy sometimes for them to have a notion in their mind what is wrong with someone, and since their main motivation (like yours)is money, the patients needs come in second. The tests that confirmed I needed the bypass could have and should have been performed within a month of my first visit (not almost 2 years later) When they finally recognized my condition it was almost too late. I went from the final test on Friday, to surgery on Saturday. I'm actually clarifying this for other people who may read this.
It is readily apparent to me you don't really give a shit about anyone else.
Oh, and fuck you for calling me a liar.

RightIsRight

I call bullshit on your Medicare/VA assertion. Right wing talking points...your usual right wing bullshit.

Friends who are providers have zero problems with Medicare and tons of problems with private insurers. People who have Medicare coverage are very happy with it. Portable to all 50 states, no preapprovals required for procedures.

no preapprovals required for procedures.

easy there. Medicare does require preapprovals for procedures (I don't know if all but some) but this is for good reason as procedures are usually approved with no problems...

but there is a preapproval process.

Also, RightIsRight, I don't know any vets who are unhappy with the VA. My cousin has had Krohn's Disease for many years. They've treated him like gold. If he had private insurance his coverage would have maxed out years ago or they'd have tried to drop him first chance they got.

YOUR right wing heros wanted to CUT VA funding after they started a war with tens of thousands of casualties. Ya, we know where their heart is, right?

Eberly

Family members of mine on Medicare and VA love it. They've never been turned down for a single procedure.

I'll go a tad easier lol. But, the right wing talking points that Medicare and VA deny coverage 2-1 over private insurers is utter BS.

Have you read the article, or the thread? You're making my point for me. A mere $5,000 in medical bills was all it took for the authors of this "study" to say that your medical bills caused your bankruptcy.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-13 02:43 PM | Reply |

I have to ask in kind did you read the article? That $5000 was the deductable ONLY. You ignored the $21,000 that they owe for some fucking reason. Probably had something to do with making your argument seem better than it was amirite?

Oh and did you skip the part where they had a family member cough up $80,000 on another set of bills? Or the $1000 premium?

Why ignore all that and run with the 5k deductable number? Well its pretty clear, because that would of made a shitty argument for you.

Read the link posted in #12, which details the study. There is nothing about "deductibles." The article clearly states that "They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness."

This means that if you were bankrupt and had more than $5,000 in medical bills, you were deemed to have filed BK because of medical bills. It also means that if you mortgaged your home to pay for medical bills, you were deemed to have filed BK because of medical bills. The fact remains that $5K in medical bills was enough for them to conclude that you filed BK because of medical bills. Are you really this fucking stupid?

Posted by 726

Way to get the ball rolling with CNN's report of erroneous data.
Here is a non quoted tidbit:

"The survey clearly states that only 29 percent of the respondents believed that their bankruptcy was actually caused by medical bills."

"The reason the authors find a 60 percent impact is because they include a whole host of medical related issues that may or may not have directly contributed to the bankruptcy filing. In fact, like their earlier study, the sample is biased because it includes people who have already filed for bankruptcy rather than including a control group of non-filers as well and then assessing the likelihood of medical debts causing bankruptcy filings."

#138 | Posted by KBM at 2009-10-14 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag: astroturfer

"Right now Danforth would love to torture me for disagreeing with his orthodoxy if only he had the power to stifle opposition viewpoint that the feds see with whatever hidden manifestation of the 'fairness' doctrine' they muster."

Could you translate that into English?

#139 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-14 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Puppet

#139 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-14 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Puppet

#141 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-14 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Just looking for any stupid thing to say

#141 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-14 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Just looking for any stupid thing to say

#142 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-14 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't have to look

"Just looking for any stupid thing to say"

"Doesn't have to look"

Don't have to look any further than your posts for stupid things to say, Lil' Joe.

#144 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-14 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Translation: "I know you are but what am I"

I know you are but what am I

#145 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-14 03:05 PM

#147 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-14 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Offenthive

JOe and others argue whether or not the percentage of bankruptcies caused by medical care is 60% or 50% or whatever percent....the point that I think is being missed and which is much more important is....how many Canadians are going bankrupt because of medical care, how many Germans or French????

Wake up Sheeple, they get you bogged down arguing details when it is the basic principles of our health care system that need changing.

how many Canadians are going bankrupt because of medical care,

great question. very little I think but you would think that would result in fewer bankruptcies overall in countries like Canada.

LOL, no you're right: you should let companies that are driven by profit and short term shareholder value run the health care system in your country.

#9 | POSTED BY PANCHOVILLA AT 2009-10-13 12:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I know, so much better to have a wasteful government with no incentive to innovate or make money make health care decisions driven by politics, and on the backs of taxpayers. Thanks for the values clarification.

It appears that the personal bankruptcy rates in the US and Canada are very similar leading me to believe that we wouldn't see a drop in personal bankruptcy filings in the US with a single pay system. One can conclude that medical bills are being pushed as a cause of bankruptcy in too many cases.

#149 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-14 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag

I wouldn't take that study too far. It seems to be attempting to compare apples to oranges, discrepencies aside. Biased think tank at work here.

It labels the fact that most personel bankruptcy in the US as a "suggestion".

"If socialized medicine played a role in reducing personal bankruptcies, we would expect to see a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States. Yet the reverse is true. The personal bankruptcy rate is actually higher in Canada than it is in the U.S.,"

Doesn't even bother to address why canadians who aren't going bankrupt by healthcare, what in fact they are going bankrupt for.

There may very well be some good comparisons to make, but this article really came up short in its attempt.

This means that if you were bankrupt and had more than $5,000 in medical bills, you were deemed to have filed BK because of medical bills. It also means that if you mortgaged your home to pay for medical bills, you were deemed to have filed BK because of medical bills. The fact remains that $5K in medical bills was enough for them to conclude that you filed BK because of medical bills. Are you really this fucking stupid?

#137 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-14 02:04 PM | Reply |

Same shit different article. You've stuck on this 5k figure, when the article clearly say over 5k, with an average in the 17k - 26k range.

But NOOOOO you stopped at 5k to make a better argument LOL. Try again.

You are full of shit. The law does not allow a garnishment that exceeds 25% of your disposable income. That means a set aside for necessary items like food, shelter, electricity and clothing.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-13 03:11 PM | Reply |

Your right on the law as to the 25%, but there is no allowance to ensure you have food/shelter/electricity/
clothing. The fact is, if your low income you may not even have enough for this shit before the 25% garnishment.

Snowe, who backed the $829-billion bill, claimed that "62 percent of all bankruptcies are a result of medical debt. I can't imagine that kind of anxiety. It's one thing to deal with an illness, quite another to deal with the fact you don't have the insurance to cover for it."

The senator did not mention the source of her claim or point out that respondents to the study she cited didn't even agree with that result. CNN.com reported on June 5 that the 62 percent figure came from a Harvard Medical School study that would be published in The American Journal of Medicine.

This study was a farce.

"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance."

Same shit different article. You've stuck on this 5k figure, when the article clearly say over 5k, with an average in the 17k - 26k range.
But NOOOOO you stopped at 5k to make a better argument LOL. Try again.

#153 | POSTED BY KNIGHTHAWK AT 2009-10-14 07:57 PM | REPLY | FLAG

c'mon. so $5,000.01 qualifies. Certainly some of those people had millions in medical bills that skewed the "average." Also, wile 17-26K seems like a lot, I doubt very seriously someone would file bk principally over that sum of money.