Obama Admin knew millions could not keep their health ins.

[Dawnia]

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.

There were 1 million bankruptcies in 2012. That is still a lot of bankruptcies. Looking at the Petition, however, doesn’t tell you why they are filing bankruptcy. You usually get that info when they are telling you their life story. And some of those people have real doosies.

When you consider that you can only file bankruptcy once in 7-10 years, bankruptcy might help in the case of a one time medical situation, but it won’t do a thing for people suffering long-term medical issues.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

The stats showed that so many were underinsured. It didn’t say that it was the sole cause for bankruptcy. Obviously people have other expenses as well.

 

[St_Francis]

The stats showed that so many were underinsured. It didn’t say that it was the sole cause for bankruptcy. Obviously people have other expenses as well.

Could you give us a link to this information?

 

[ProVobis]

Could you give us a link to this information?

I lost my original one but here are a couple linking bankruptcy with medical bills.

cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

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

also (and this was written in 2009)

Dr. Woolhandler, an advocate of a single-payer health-care system, said lawmakers in Washington should reconsider health-care reform in light of the study. “Covering the uninsured isn’t enough,” she said. “Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

The stats showed that so many were underinsured. It didn’t say that it was the sole cause for bankruptcy. Obviously people have other expenses as well.

I think it would take more analysis than anybody has ever done to know for sure how many bankruptcies have been due to medical bills alone.

I have seen a lot of write-offs of medical bills when the provider (or its collector) realizes they can’t actually collect. I have a lawyer friend who negotiates them down to manageable size, and he tells me the main thing is to demonstrate to the provider what the client can and can’t pay. They’ll adjust to capability.

But if a person files bankruptcy for other reasons or a combination of reasons, the amount of the medical charge is always listed as the maximum amount when quite possibly the medical bills could have been settled for much less.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Closer to my home is the Fermi-lab, much of it funded by the U.S. government, which developed the Proton Therapy equipment for over 10 centers (I believe) over the U.S. This is high-dose radiation directly focusing on the cancer cells, with minimal effects on the surrounding healthy tissue. For prostate, lung, and other cancers.

 

[Trader]

I think it would take more analysis than anybody has ever done to know for sure how many bankruptcies have been due to medical bills alone.

I have seen a lot of write-offs of medical bills when the provider (or its collector) realizes they can’t actually collect. I have a lawyer friend who negotiates them down to manageable size, and he tells me the main thing is to demonstrate to the provider what the client can and can’t pay. They’ll adjust to capability.

But if a person files bankruptcy for other reasons or a combination of reasons, the amount of the medical charge is always listed as the maximum amount when quite possibly the medical bills could have been settled for much less.

This is a mess partly created and much exasperated by government policies. If a doctor or hospital accepts Medicare or Medicaid, it is illegal to charge a patient less than the government contract price just because he can’t afford it. The patient is charged the full amount and then the providers have to pay taxes on the amount billed unless they write it off as uncollectable, but they can’t write if off unless they make an effort to collect. Enter the lawyers who also get a piece of the action for a debt everyone knew could not be paid before it was incurred.

My solution would be to get the government out of health care and allow patients and providers to negotiate reasonable fees before treatment. There would be less money spent on futile efforts to collect and less financial stress for the patient. Being sick is stressful enough for most people.

 

[Erich]

This is a mess partly created and much exasperated by government policies.

I think you meant to say “exacerbated” – but yes, government policies do have a tendency to exasperate

 

[Darryl1958]

I think you meant to say “exacerbated” – but yes, government policies do have a tendency to exasperate

I think that in the minds of a lot of us, the meaning of the two words have already been merged into one word that captures the sense of both words.

 

[Trader]

I think you meant to say “exacerbated” – but yes, government policies do have a tendency to exasperate

You are correct. English always was my worst subject other than Latin, where I was truly terrible. Spellcheck can’t always save me from myself.

 

[ProVobis]

My solution would be to get the government out of health care

Maybe to some extent. But I don’t think you can count on privates to stop infectious diseases and such from being imported into the country.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Closer to my home is the Fermi-lab, much of it funded by the U.S. government, which developed the Proton Therapy equipment for over 10 centers (I believe) over the U.S. This is high-dose radiation directly focusing on the cancer cells, with minimal effects on the surrounding healthy tissue. For prostate, lung, and other cancers.

It’d be interesting to see if the therapy really works. My understanding of experimental cancer treatments is there are no controlled samples.

 

[ProVobis]

It’d be interesting to see if the therapy really works. My understanding of experimental cancer treatments is there are no controlled samples.

I guess the success rate depends on how quickly the disease is detected.

The Loma Linda center in California was the first I believe to use this treatment.

protons.com/proton-therapy/the-proton-advantage/history-of-proton-radiation-therapy.page?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I guess the success rate depends on how quickly the disease is detected.

The Loma Linda center in California was the first I believe to use this treatment.

protons.com/proton-therapy/the-proton-advantage/history-of-proton-radiation-therapy.page?

See, this is the myth. How do you know that cancer is really going to develop in the first place? We are detecting cancer earlier and earlier. And people believe they are being cured. The ones that aren’t detected during routine examinations are labeled as “particularly aggressive.”

Nowadays, just about every breast cancer developing between annual breast exams are labeled “particularly aggressive.”

I really have my doubts about the effectiveness of early detection.

 

[ProVobis]

See, this is the myth. How do you know that cancer is really going to develop in the first place? We are detecting cancer earlier and earlier. And people believe they are being cured. The ones that aren’t detected during routine examinations are labeled as “particularly aggressive.”

Nowadays, just about every breast cancer developing between annual breast exams are labeled “particularly aggressive.”

I really have my doubts about the effectiveness of early detection.

I’ve thought about this myself and I believe you make a valid point. Maybe once a year isn’t enough.

 

[Orogeny]

I think it’s because of the false hope doctors give. That’s how they make their money. Especially in research hosptals.

I’m sorry, Christine, but I can’t let this pass.

I have several friends who are doctors and/or researchers. They care. That is why they do what they do. They take it personally when patients die. Trust me, I have listened to the stories and felt the grief.

What should they do, let patients die? Should no effort be made to help cancer patients because they can’t cure all cancers?

My son spent 3 years working for a researcher who was instrumental in developing a treatment for a type of cancer that affects children. When he (the doctor) began his research, the mortality rate was roughly 90%. If your baby was diagnosed with the disease, you basically were receiving a death certificate. Now, the mortality rate is something like 40%. Not great if you are in that 40%, but a heck of a lot better that before and certainly is not “false hope”. And the treatments are getting better as new drug cocktails are being tested. That success came about based on very dedicated people who CARE, not just a bunch of doctors looking to make a buck off of someone’s fears.

If you don’t want to be checked, don’t be. My sister sounds just like you, even after she was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer that has metastasized to her lungs. She refused to get a colonoscopy that could have detected the cancer before it became a problem because she believes that cancer doctors and the drug companies are in collusion to keep from finding a cure for cancer because there is too much money to be made in the research. That same sister continued to say that even after those greedy doctors and drug companies have been able, through surgery and chemo, to remove the colon tumor and shrink the lung tumor to where it is almost undetectable.

I’m sorry, but it really makes me mad when I read things like you wrote. I pray that you don’t have to use the services of those money-hungry doctors anytime soon, but if you do, rest assured that they do care and will do the best they can to help you.

Peace

Tim

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m sorry, Christine, but I can’t let this pass.

I have several friends who are doctors and/or researchers. They care. That is why they do what they do. They take it personally when patients die. Trust me, I have listened to the stories and felt the grief.

What should they do, let patients die? Should no effort be made to help cancer patients because they can’t cure all cancers?

My son spent 3 years working for a researcher who was instrumental in developing a treatment for a type of cancer that affects children. When he (the doctor) began his research, the mortality rate was roughly 90%. If your baby was diagnosed with the disease, you basically were receiving a death certificate. Now, the mortality rate is something like 40%. Not great if you are in that 40%, but a heck of a lot better that before and certainly is not “false hope”. And the treatments are getting better as new drug cocktails are being tested. That success came about based on very dedicated people who CARE, not just a bunch of doctors looking to make a buck off of someone’s fears.

If you don’t want to be checked, don’t be. My sister sounds just like you, even after she was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer that has metastasized to her lungs. She refused to get a colonoscopy that could have detected the cancer before it became a problem because she believes that cancer doctors and the drug companies are in collusion to keep from finding a cure for cancer because there is too much money to be made in the research. That same sister continued to say that even after those greedy doctors and drug companies have been able, through surgery and chemo, to remove the colon tumor and shrink the lung tumor to where it is almost undetectable.

I’m sorry, but it really makes me mad when I read things like you wrote. I pray that you don’t have to use the services of those money-hungry doctors anytime soon, but if you do, rest assured that they do care and will do the best they can to help you.

Peace

Tim

Tim,
I don’t think doctors and drug companies are in collusion to keep from finding a cure. I believe they are sincere. But I also believe they are overly optimistic about the efficacy of the treatments.

I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to be regularly tested. I’m just not going to do it. I don’t intend to take any treatment if it is discovered I have cancer, so what’s the use?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’ve thought about this myself and I believe you make a valid point. Maybe once a year isn’t enough.

It’s possible, but I believe researchers are questioning the necessity of having breast exams beginning at age 40.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It is now becoming clear that the Obama administration will not have Health.care.gov fixed by December 1 so hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of people will be able to smoothly enroll by January 1.

healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-obamacare-rollout-administration.html

Early numbers show 3% enrollment in Obamacare among 12 exchanges

 

[markomalley]

From Breitbart’s Big Government:

Working ObamaCare Exchanges Enroll Only 3 Percent of Goal

The Wall Street Journal reports that only 40,000 to 50,000 have thus far signed up on the federal website. This brings the total number of enrollees (including the 12 states with working sites) to fewer than 100,000. The White House target for October alone was 500,000.

Hot Air did the math: With 7 million being the total enrollee goal by the end of next March and only 100,000 enrolled thus far, the White House is “1.4 percent of the way there with almost 25 percent of the initial enrollment period having already elapsed.”

Reuters reports that in the 12 states where the ObamaCare exchanges are working smoothly, only 49,100 have enrolled for ObamaCare. The 2014 goal in these 12 states is 1.4 million enrollees. The 49,100 number represents only 3% of that goal and includes Medicaid enrollees in Hawaii and Rhode Island.
A stunning success!!! Congratulations need to go out to the Obama Administration!!