48%...

[Darkwind]

And what they don't go into detail about is of those 600k bankruptcies, how many were due to the fact that the loss of the job kept them from making payments on healthcare bills that they had accrued.

In addition, how many of them filed bankruptcies because of their loss of job caused them to just give up on paying them even though the balances may have been manageable?

Far to many questions to have answered yet.

In the end, less then 600k in a country of 400 million is considerably less then a national crisis.

They had Health Insurance, the majority of them. I'm still wondering where you pulled that 400 million from. I'm assuming your ass.

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

 

[The T]

No, you're guessing and/or taking compulsive liars at their word.

Like I said, you're not this naïve.

I'm not taking anyone at their word. Like I said, I don't know their reasoning for 2012 and was guessing at it. I figure there is no reason for the Dems to rush this if it does pass. If they rush it and fuck it up, guess what? They will lose election after election.

I'm not naive, I'm looking at the impacts from a political standpoint.

I'm also looking at the tax increases that kick in almost immediately, for a program that won't launch for several years later.

This isn't caution, it's an accounting gimmick.

Exactly. How many in a subsequent poll would take kindly to know they're paying for something that they really won't be ables to take part in for that long? (Especially when we are such a 'give it to me NOW' society)?

What would those 'POLLS' reflect?

 

[Annie]

No, you're guessing and/or taking compulsive liars at their word.

Like I said, you're not this naïve.

I'm not taking anyone at their word. Like I said, I don't know their reasoning for 2012 and was guessing at it. I figure there is no reason for the Dems to rush this if it does pass. If they rush it and fuck it up, guess what? They will lose election after election.

I'm not naive, I'm looking at the impacts from a political standpoint.

I'm also looking at the tax increases that kick in almost immediately, for a program that won't launch for several years later.

This isn't caution, it's an accounting gimmick.

Yep. Dog actually has a point. If the impact of implying hit before 2012, Obama would lose no doubt on that. So, delay, then he has a chance. Slim, but a chance.

 

[Modbert]

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

Again, talking out of your ass. The Census says we have about 300 million people. Once again, you prove that you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Darkwind]

No, you're guessing and/or taking compulsive liars at their word.

Like I said, you're not this naïve.

I'm not taking anyone at their word. Like I said, I don't know their reasoning for 2012 and was guessing at it. I figure there is no reason for the Dems to rush this if it does pass. If they rush it and fuck it up, guess what? They will lose election after election.

I'm not naive, I'm looking at the impacts from a political standpoint.

I'm also looking at the tax increases that kick in almost immediately, for a program that won't launch for several years later.

This isn't caution, it's an accounting gimmick.

Absolutely correct.

It is an accounting gimmick to keep the "Cost" of the bill down. if they collect a bunch of money before they pay anything, they can then claim it doesn't actually cost that 4 trillion dollars that it will cost us. It will only cost us 900 billion and Mr. Obama says he can live with 900 billion.

I just wonder if American can live with it.

 

[The T]

And what they don't go into detail about is of those 600k bankruptcies, how many were due to the fact that the loss of the job kept them from making payments on healthcare bills that they had accrued.

In addition, how many of them filed bankruptcies because of their loss of job caused them to just give up on paying them even though the balances may have been manageable?

Far to many questions to have answered yet.

In the end, less then 600k in a country of 400 million is considerably less then a national crisis.

They had Health Insurance, the majority of them. I'm still wondering where you pulled that 400 million from. I'm assuming your ass.

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

You have to understand that for many? History began the day of their birth. Anything beforehand is merely heresey and conjecture...and it doesn't count.

This is the mentality you deal with here.

 

[Darkwind]

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

Again, talking out of your ass. The Census says we have about 300 million people. Once again, you prove that you have no clue what you're talking about.

LOL

The census said we had over 300 million in 2000. Last time I looked, that was over 9 years ago.

But lets go with 300 million.

You have less then 600 thousand with a population of 300 million. Still NOT a crisis.

 

[Oddball]

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

Actually, you're off by about 93 million: Census Bureau Home Page

 

[Modbert]

LOL

The census said we had over 300 million in 2000. Last time I looked, that was over 9 years ago.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of October 20 2009, the United States has a total resident population of 308 million.

Just leave. You have already made a fool of yourself. Don't make me have to make you into a bigger fool.

 

[Darkwind]

And it may be that we have 400 to 600k people file bankruptcies in this country during good economic times.....

 

[Darkwind]

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

Actually, you're off by about 93 million: Census Bureau Home Page

Okay. So, a half mil out of 307 million people. Not a crisis that I see.

 

[Darkwind]

LOL

The census said we had over 300 million in 2000. Last time I looked, that was over 9 years ago.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of October 20 2009, the United States has a total resident population of 308 million.

Just leave. You have already made a fool of yourself. Don't make me have to make you into a bigger fool.

you are incapable of making Me look like a fool. you don't have the intelligence.

 

[Modbert]

As for that 300 million, 27.6% are under 20. People who are younger than 18 can't declare bankruptcy.

So that would leave 217,200,000 or so if I did my calculation correctly.

600,000 out of 217,200,000.

Then you have other factors to take in for which would probably end up leaving it at 200 million.

 

[Darkwind]

As for that 300 million, 27.6% are under 20. People who are younger than 18 can't declare bankruptcy.

So that would leave 217,200,000 or so if I did my calculation correctly.

600,000 out of 217,200,000.

Then you have other factors to take in for which would probably end up leaving it at 200 million.

I'm still not seeing a crisis.....

 

[Oddball]

As for that 300 million, 27.6% are under 20. People who are younger than 18 can't declare bankruptcy.

How many in that demographic end up with the kinds of chronic maladies that can cause bankruptcies to their parents?

Really...You're smarter than this.

 

[Modbert]

I'm still not seeing a crisis.....

I'm sure you would say the same about the number of Veterans who are homeless or the homeless population in general. I mean, it's only a small number in the grand scheme of things supposedly, why should we care?

You're taking the same stance that Wilson did with The Great Influenza, Reagan with the AIDS crisis, and this country today with the Financial Crisis. You are waiting for things to get out of hand before taking action.

 

[txlonghorn]

48%? Hmmm...they must not have polled all the dead people that voted...or the false names on register with ACORN.

hehehee....watch this. They gonna go apeshit now! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Sinatra]

The Census bureau estimates that we have nearly 400 million people in the U.S. I think that after the Census we'll see that to be a true number. Or do you think we just stopped growing after the last census and we don't actually have more people in the country until after we count them again?

Actually, you're off by about 93 million: Census Bureau Home Page

Okay. So, a half mil out of 307 million people. Not a crisis that I see.

_____

Just a little needed perspective here....

___

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."[/B] 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.

Aparna Mathur, an American Enterprise Institute research fellow and another witness in the hearing, told me in a telephone conversation that "the Himmelstein surveys overstate the effect of medical debts on bankruptcy. Despite obvious problems with the survey methodology, it was clear to me during the testimony yesterday that the study was being used as a pretext for making the case for universal health insurance."

Dr. Himmelstein's study contradicts the economics literature on personal bankruptcies. Most reputable studies are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, published by the Federal Reserve, which lists different types of consumer debt. Medical debt rose slightly from 5.5% of all debt in 2001 to 5.8% of all debt in 2007, according to the Fed.

A study by the Department of Justice examined more than 5,000 bankruptcy cases between 2000 and 2002. It found that 54% of bankruptcies involve no medical debt, and more than 90% have medical debt of less than $5,000. Even among the minority of bankruptcies that report medical debt, only a few have enough to cause personal bankruptcy.

Dr. Himmelstein gets different results because he uses a smaller sample and a different methodology than other studies. He started with a random sample of 5,251 bankruptcy petitions and wound up through a series of screenings only using 1,032. His survey assumes that when a medical problem is mentioned that associated medical costs are automatically associated with bankruptcy. In addition, anyone is counted as medically bankrupt if they cite illness or medical bills as a reason for bankruptcy, even if other debts, such as foreclosure and credit card debt, are a primary reason.

Furthermore, if respondents lost two weeks of work due to illness or injury they were counted as medically bankrupt, even if they had no medical debt. Hypothetically, someone could go into bankruptcy while on Medicare or Medicaid, even if they owed no medical bills at all.

Yet using Dr. Himmelstein's methodology, even single-payer health care would not solve the medical bankruptcy problem. People would still lose work time to illness, perhaps even more time than under the current system, because health care would be of lower quality. Under Britain's single-payer system, for example, people who think they might have swine flu are not being seen by doctors. Instead, they are asked to stay home and consult with the doctor over the phone.

More and more Americans understand that adding $1 trillion to government spending for health care reform won't fix our economic crisis. So proponents of single-payer health care bring out poor Elizabeth Edwards to justify their made-up numbers on medical bankruptcy. Shame on them.


Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a contributing editor of RealClearMarkets and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.



RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth

 

[Modbert]

How many in that demographic end up with the kinds of chronic maladies that can cause bankruptcies to their parents?

Really...You're smarter than this.

A good number I'm sure. However, I'm taking into account adults here Dude. The children are a non-factor in the numbers at the moment. Especially since if we are using the 600,000 number of bankruptcies, we're assuming that all 600,000 were single. Once again, they could be married and have several children.

So the number of bankruptcies is not the exact number of people affected.

 

[The T]

As for that 300 million, 27.6% are under 20. People who are younger than 18 can't declare bankruptcy.

So that would leave 217,200,000 or so if I did my calculation correctly.

600,000 out of 217,200,000.

Then you have other factors to take in for which would probably end up leaving it at 200 million.

I'm still not seeing a crisis.....

You don't. He sees people dying in the streets, and massive soup lines in the streets.