Obama Admin knew millions could not keep their health ins.

  • Thread starter Thread starter MJE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Point taken.

Would it help things if I were to tell you 2/3 - 3/4 of personal bankruptcies are a result of underinsurance?
That’s rather subjective since many of the people who file bankruptcy experience a reduction or loss of income because of medical issues. Is it really undersinsurance if they can no longer afford the out-of-pocket costs due to reduced income or is it an income problem?

If someone has a stroke, which prevents them from working, is their bankruptcy due to the out-of-pocket costs or due to loss of income? Without income it’s kinda hard to pay the out-of-pocket costs regardless of how much they total up to be.
 
To be fair, most priests have no idea of how family finances work. When I was a college seminarian, the rector freaked out because I had an economics course through the college’s experimental honors program. He later became a bishop and talked about how our families treated our servants for his example of economic justice. As far as I know, his family was the only one in the chapel whose family ever had servants at home. He may have had good intentions, but he was clueless about financial matters.

I have been without health insurance for all but 6 months since 1994. For more than two decades before that, I had fully paid insurance through employers and never used it even once. The premiums for individual policies I looked at periodically were priced way too high for someone with low risks. I have always saved part of my earnings and earned an investment return higher that what insurance companies earn, so I have saved enough to pay my own costs for normal health problems. In less than six months I can get Medicare and you hard working younger people will be stuck with me. Then I can get as sick as I want.:rolleyes:

The point of all this is that I agree with you and not the horribly misinformed priest. Insurance is only one of the responsible ways to pay for medical care.

When was the last time you heard this priest talk about the sinfulness of gluttony and other anti-life behaviors that raise the cost of health care for everyone else? I have only heard the word gluttony used from the pulpit once in the last 40 years, and that was from one our African priests on his last Sunday in our parish. Imagine if you can the cultural shock of coming from a place where people suffer and die from not having enough to eat to a place where people suffer and die from eating too much.
The priest is very much on of the “spirit of Vatican II” priests. He was on a tangent that day and wasn’t aware that I didn’t have insurance. The others I was with got a huge kick out it when he started going off. He says some of the craziest stuff sometimes, but can have some of the best homilies…go figure.

I’ve had insurance through previous jobs and I’m not against insurance at all. I just have an issue with forcing insurance on everyone regardless of the fact that it won’t fix the underlying problem, which is skyrocketing medical costs.
 
I think that we can agree on. Too bad it doesn’t show up in the CPI numbers.
College tuitions follow the same kind of trajectory. the more the government subsidized, the higher the prices rose. In a sense, the affordability of a higher education decreases with government subsidies.

It is not just a phenomena limited to big government. Big insurance companies seem to have the same kind of effect.
In many third world countries, where it is the individual who foots the bill, or there is no bill being paid, medical costs stay in the real world instead of skyrocketing into the illusionary world of high finances.
 
College tuitions follow the same kind of trajectory. the more the government subsidized, the higher the prices rose. In a sense, the affordability of a higher education decreases with government subsidies.

It is not just a phenomena limited to big government. Big insurance companies seem to have the same kind of effect.
In many third world countries, where it is the individual who foots the bill, or there is no bill being paid, medical costs stay in the real world instead of skyrocketing into the illusionary world of high finances.
Absolutely on point. College is now MORE unaffordable because of govt interference in the market. Tuition for college has skyrocketed because of the govt pumping up the student loan market.

In addition to your 3rd world example on medical care. take a look at the prices for elective surgeries, LASIK, and plastic surgery. The costs for these procedures have fallen DRAMATICALLY, while quality, reliability, speed, and comfort have all improved greatly.
 
Point taken.

Would it help things if I were to tell you 2/3 - 3/4 of personal bankruptcies are a result of underinsurance?
It would let us all know that you are using poor information in your decision-making, which would help to explain your positions. This claim is patently false. It was based upon one study that was aimed to get the result intended. They claimed that any bankruptcy with any medical bills was caused by the medical bills. No amount of other debts and issues mattered. It was deemed that the medical bills were the cause. Complete and utter nonsense. There are several who have taken that study to task and ripped it apart. I’ll look for some if I have the time. Here is one link mentioning it.

examiner.com/article/harvard-study-shows-unpaid-medical-bills-is-the-leading-cause-of-bankruptcy-the-u-s

*Other researchers dispute study

A reexamination of the data by David Dranove and Michael L. Millenson of Northwestern University disputes the conclusion that more than 50% of personal bankruptcy are driven by unpaid medical expenses.

They also suggest that those effected by personal bankruptcy driven by medical expenses tend to be those whose income is close to the poverty level not middle class families as suggested by the Harvard study.*
 
The study was COMPLETE garbage, with an intended result from activists trying to get govt control of healthcare. The entire thing should be rejected out of hand.

realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html

*Mrs. Edwards based her testimony on a study in the American Journal of Medicine conducted by Dr. David Himmelstein and other researchers from Harvard University and Ohio University. An unassuming reader might conclude that medical debts are the major cause of personal bankruptcy in America, because the study finds that 62% of bankruptcies in 2007 were “medical.”

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, who should know better, said “This surge in medical bankruptcies demonstrates why health care reform is urgently needed right now. So many people’s lives are uprooted, and their financial security destroyed, by unexpected medical costs.”

But fewer than one percent of Americans enter bankruptcy each year. Of those, only three to five percent are plausibly bankrupt due to medical debt. These numbers present the inconvenient truth that our health system is not leading to bankruptcy in America.

The Himmelstein study paints a picture of an American middle class that even with health insurance coverage is being bankrupted by health care costs. The share of bankruptcies attributable to health care costs rose by 50%between 2001 and 2007, according to the study. The message is that rising health care costs bankrupt the insured middle class as well as the uninsured lower class.

**The only problem is that the study is fatally flawed. *Dr. Himmelstein is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that describes itself on its Web site as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” An additional Harvard coauthor, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, is co-founder and secretary of the organization. Even though the article states on the front page that the authors have no conflict of interest, two are self-declared activists for single-payer health care, and they have twisted the data to fit their cause.
 
But fewer than one percent of Americans enter bankruptcy each year.
Fewer than one percent? What does that mean, 1/2 of 1 percent? So, can one conclude over a 50-yr period, roughly 25% have entered bankruptcy?

So I guess I don’t really understand what you’re arguing about. Several years ago I ran across quite a few applications who confessed that they had filed for bankruptcy within the previous 5 years so I’m convinced they are significant number of bankruptcies every year.
 
In many third world countries, where it is the individual who foots the bill, or there is no bill being paid, medical costs stay in the real world instead of skyrocketing into the illusionary world of high finances.
Indeed. That’s why many were/are going overseas to get bypasses and such.
 
Fewer than one percent? What does that mean, 1/2 of 1 percent? So, can one conclude over a 50-yr period, roughly 25% have entered bankruptcy?

So I guess I don’t really understand what you’re arguing about. Several years ago I ran across quite a few applications who confessed that they had filed for bankruptcy within the previous 5 years so I’m convinced they are significant number of bankruptcies every year.
I am not at all surprised that you ran into that. People were carrying huge amounts of credit card debt in the 2000’s, remember that? And then the housing market went poof! and all sorts of people lost their jobs, remember that? And so I would not be surprised if an increeased number of people filed for bankruptcy as a result of that. A higher number of people than usual also lost their houses due to foreclosures as well.
 
From WDAZ
Thousands in North Dakota face switch in health care coverages (37 signed up, 35,000 dropped)

More than 35,000 customers in North Dakota face discontinued health coverage because their plans are being scrapped due to new requirements under the Affordable Care Act.

The three major health insurers in North Dakota were asked to report to state regulators their enrollment figures and cancellations resulting from the health reform act, commonly known as Obamacare.

The state’s largest health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, covers about 31,600 members – 17,000 in small groups and 14,600 individuals – whose insurance plans are being discontinued.
Buried deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep in the article is this statistic:
Besides collecting information on cancellations, Hamm’s office asked the three major health insurers to report the number of enrollments under the new health insurance marketplace provided by the Affordable Care Act.

As of Friday, the three insurers have logged 30 enrollments covering 37 people, a number Hamm called “concerning.”
Absolutely amazing.

I’m sure these 35,000 people are absolutely THRILLED that they were dropped from insurance and now able to pay three times as much for a policy that covers 1/3 what their old policy did. Thank you Obama. Thank you Pelosi. Thank you Reid.
 
Fewer than one percent? What does that mean, 1/2 of 1 percent? So, can one conclude over a 50-yr period, roughly 25% have entered bankruptcy?

So I guess I don’t really understand what you’re arguing about. Several years ago I ran across quite a few applications who confessed that they had filed for bankruptcy within the previous 5 years so I’m convinced they are significant number of bankruptcies every year.
No, you can’t conclude that. Your conclusion is based upon assuming the population is static, and also assumes that each bankruptcy is a unique individual filing, which is not true.

And the point of the statistic the article was using was to give an indication of the size of the problem. Many people have this notion that there are huge numbers of people filing every day, when that is not the case. And man also get the wrong impression because they see the number of “filings” and assume those are all new bankruptcy filings, which they aren’t. Each bankruptcy has several filings along the way, so the total of bankruptcies is a fraction of the filings.
 
How do they know this ahead of time? One of the reasons people are surviving cancers and living longer generally is that many of these diseases are caught early on.
Strangely enough, this might not be true. Due to advances in testing and incidental findings in “well person” screenings, a lot more asymptomatic diseases are spotted. However, some studies strongly suggest that early detection does not significantly change cancer outcomes.
 
Strangely enough, this might not be true. Due to advances in testing and incidental findings in “well person” screenings, a lot more asymptomatic diseases are spotted. However, some studies strongly suggest that early detection does not significantly change cancer outcomes.
I have heard that too. PBS Nova had a story on that. I can’t find a link though. It seems that most of us probably have cancer in our bodies which will never turn into full fledged cancer. Based on these early detections, people praise their doctors for saving their lives, even though most likely these early findings would have come to nothing. According to the program, this especially applies to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

I don’t get tested for any of it. IMHO it’s a racket. When people find that out, they look at me like I have 2 heads.

My sister’s husband just died of lung cancer. He was he was diagnosed at stage III 5 years ago. He got intensive chemotherapy, and by Thanksgiving of that year, he was at stage IV. He looked like a human skeleton. So they took him off everything, because the chemo was killing him. Somehow he survived until January of the following year. He was put on experimental treatment, some pills. They didn’t make him sick, and he could eat and drink water. He was fine for another 3 1/2 years when he developed a brain tumor - the lung cancer had spread. He lived another 1 1/2 years and finally died in August. Exactly 5 years after he was diagnosed. He will be counted in the 5 year “survival” rate.

I personally know of at least 2 people who died this year of colon cancer. They got their colonoscopies at age 50 and were diagnosed with cancer. Never were sick or had any symptoms. As you can imagine, they got aggressive treatment. Both died within a year of diagnosis. Miserable deaths because of the treatments. Who know how long they would have lived without treatment? But the medical field takes credit for having kept them alive for a year after predicting death within 3 months.

We have a major cancer treatment center here in St. Louis called the Siteman Center. It’s the place to go if you have cancer. Siteman gets a lot of money for medical research.

And that’s what I think it’s all about.
 
Strangely enough, this might not be true. Due to advances in testing and incidental findings in “well person” screenings, a lot more asymptomatic diseases are spotted. However, some studies strongly suggest that early detection does not significantly change cancer outcomes.
I did get a colonoscopy at age 50. The doctor told me I had polyps and removed them while while he was at it. I was told to come back every five years. Because they removed polyps, the procedure was no longer considered an exam, but a “procedure.” And I had to pay thousands out of pocket. The new Obamacare policies will be the same. You will get free screenings, but if they find something “while they’re at it” and remove it, it turns into a procedure. And THEY SAVED YOUR LIFE!!!
 
I have heard that too. PBS Nova had a story on that. I can’t find a link though. It seems that most of us probably have cancer in our bodies which will never turn into full fledged cancer. Based on these early detections, people praise their doctors for saving their lives, even though most likely these early findings would have come to nothing. According to the program, this especially applies to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

I don’t get tested for any of it. IMHO it’s a racket. When people find that out, they look at me like I have 2 heads.

My sister’s husband just died of lung cancer. He was he was diagnosed at stage III 5 years ago. He got intensive chemotherapy, and by Thanksgiving of that year, he was at stage IV. He looked like a human skeleton. So they took him off everything, because the chemo was killing him. Somehow he survived until January of the following year. He was put on experimental treatment, some pills. They didn’t make him sick, and he could eat and drink water. He was fine fo
r another 3 1/2 years when he developed a brain tumor - the lung cancer had spread. He lived another 1 1/2 years and finally died in August. Exactly 5 years after he was diagnosed. He will be counted in the 5 year “survival” rate.

I personally know of at least 2 people who died this year of colon cancer. They got their colonoscopies at age 50 and were diagnosed with cancer. Never were sick or had any symptoms. As you can imagine, they got aggressive treatment. Both died within a year of diagnosis. Miserable deaths because of the treatments. Who know how long they would have lived without treatment? But the medical field takes credit for having kept them alive for a year after predicting death within 3 months.

We have a major cancer treatment center here in St. Louis called the Siteman Center. It’s the place to go if you have cancer. Siteman gets a lot of money for medical research.

And that’s what I think it’s all about.
I agree.A close friend of mine I died several years ago from stage IV pancreatic cancer.
He was told initially that he had approx. 6 months to live.However if he were to undergo aggressive radiation/chemo,he most likely could buy a few more months.Well,he went for the therapy and dies two weeks after his diagnosis:eek:
The last two weeks of his life were a living hell.That is when I decided,if ever diagnosed with a terminal cancer,I would refuse any treatment beyond palliative.
I also have to wonder how ones’s faith plays a role in decisions like this.Trying to buy a few extra months when no cure is available seems like a decision made out of fear.
 
I have heard that too. PBS Nova had a story on that. I can’t find a link though. It seems that most of us probably have cancer in our bodies which will never turn into full fledged cancer. Based on these early detections, people praise their doctors for saving their lives, even though most likely these early findings would have come to nothing. According to the program, this especially applies to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

I don’t get tested for any of it. IMHO it’s a racket. When people find that out, they look at me like I have 2 heads.

My sister’s husband just died of lung cancer. He was he was diagnosed at stage III 5 years ago. He got intensive chemotherapy, and by Thanksgiving of that year, he was at stage IV. He looked like a human skeleton. So they took him off everything, because the chemo was killing him. Somehow he survived until January of the following year. He was put on experimental treatment, some pills. They didn’t make him sick, and he could eat and drink water. He was fine for another 3 1/2 years when he developed a brain tumor - the lung cancer had spread. He lived another 1 1/2 years and finally died in August. Exactly 5 years after he was diagnosed. He will be counted in the 5 year “survival” rate.

I personally know of at least 2 people who died this year of colon cancer. They got their colonoscopies at age 50 and were diagnosed with cancer. Never were sick or had any symptoms. As you can imagine, they got aggressive treatment. Both died within a year of diagnosis. Miserable deaths because of the treatments. Who know how long they would have lived without treatment? But the medical field takes credit for having kept them alive for a year after predicting death within 3 months.

We have a major cancer treatment center here in St. Louis called the Siteman Center. It’s the place to go if you have cancer. Siteman gets a lot of money for medical research.

And that’s what I think it’s all about.
Apparently there are cancers that are very aggressive, and for which nothing seems to help. Not early detection, not treatment, nothing.

On the other hand there are very non aggressive and moderately aggressive cancers. The first don’t require anything. The second might or might not. Apparently one of the difficulties with cancer treatment is that variation. We think we have cured a lot of cancers because we treated cancers that weren’t a threat at all, or generally are not until they become symptomatic.

For a lot of cancers, I don’t think medical science knows which ones are highly aggressive and which ones are not, other than by the progression or non-progression of the disease.
 
Apparently there are cancers that are very aggressive, and for which nothing seems to help. Not early detection, not treatment, nothing.
Forgot about that phrase. The last few people I know who died of breast cancer were told they had “very aggressive” cancer because the cancer was not discovered in their yearly exams.
On the other hand there are very non aggressive and moderately aggressive cancers. The first don’t require anything. The second might or might not. Apparently one of the difficulties with cancer treatment is that variation. We think we have cured a lot of cancers because we treated cancers that weren’t a threat at all, or generally are not until they become symptomatic.
For a lot of cancers, I don’t think medical science knows which ones are highly aggressive and which ones are not, other than by the progression or non-progression of the disease.
👍
 
I agree.A close friend of mine I died several years ago from stage IV pancreatic cancer.
He was told initially that he had approx. 6 months to live.However if he were to undergo aggressive radiation/chemo,he most likely could buy a few more months.Well,he went for the therapy and dies two weeks after his diagnosis:eek:
The last two weeks of his life were a living hell.That is when I decided,if ever diagnosed with a terminal cancer,I would refuse any treatment beyond palliative.
I also have to wonder how ones’s faith plays a role in decisions like this.Trying to buy a few extra months when no cure is available seems like a decision made out of fear.
I think it’s because of the false hope doctors give. That’s how they make their money. Especially in research hosptals.

Every person of whom I spoke on this thread really thought they could beat this cancer. They were people of great Faith in God.
 
Some people believe we can cure cancer but greed and aggressive research funding in the name of “cancer research” is why we don’t. But I suppose that’s a whole other thread : )

This has got to be one of the most informative threads right now it definitely beats twitter and sifting through articles : )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top