Quote :

"And you're trying to make the case that since the worst case scenario only happens to 2 out of 10 people, it's not really a problem. Huh? Not to mention the other 74% that have varying degrees less then the worst case. "

Considering the whole reason the topic came up is because you're claiming there are massive numbers of people to whom all of the following apply:

1) They got sick
2) They lost their job
3) They lost their insurance
4) They were financially secure prior to being sick.
5) They have a chronic condition

Just to meet your first 3 requirements, we're down to 2 out of 10 people *that file for bankruptcy*, and we haven't even gotten the last two requirements, and we're of course ignoring all of the people that manage to pay for their health care without declaring bankruptcy. So yes, I think it does prove my point that people are poorly managing their money, and if they did a better job, they would suddenly find medical care more affordable.

Quote :

"Hospitals are becoming so inflexible that people declare bankruptcy for small amounts just to keep them from garnishing what little income they have left after their illness. It's not hard with just a cursory search to find horror stories like this, where a kidney transplant recipient who has been paying per the agreement now finds that the hospital is threatening to garnish his unemployment benefits:"

Once again, the point is that these people should be able to come up with small sums of money relatively easily, and the fact that they can not is evidence that they are way over extended.

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with what's being proposed, or what has a any chance of passing in the real world. "

Why should I care to discuss what is being proposed when the proposed legislation is worthless and there's nothing you or I can do to change that except to write our congressmen with alternatives and reasons not to support the current proposals? I thought we wanted real healthcare reform? If that's the case, we're better off discussing the ideas we should be pushing our congressmen to support, rather than debating over whether we'd prefer the cherry or the strawberry scented anal lube.

Quote :

"The Republicans and insurance companys have tried to strip out anything meaningful. A single payer plan for a basic level of birth to death healthcare coverage with the ability to buy up would be ideal - and would probably save money to boot. It would combine a basic healthcare safety net with freemarket coverage."

Please. The simple fact of the matter is that if the Democrats really believed the crock of shit they were selling, they would have passed this legislation long ago. The fact that they have a majority in both houses and control the whitehouse and still can't get this legislation passed despite what they claim as massive public support is just proof that this is a load of shit they're trying to pass and even they don't want any part of it. Further, as I've said time and again, one need look no further than our own state of Massachusetts to see that everyone having insurance != everyone having or affording health care.

1/25/2010 7:54:47 AM

Quote :

"Once again, the point is that these people should be able to come up with small sums of money relatively easily, and the fact that they can not is evidence that they are way over extended. "

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. To make a statement like that in the face of facts that show 40% of medical bankruptcies were due to loss of income shows me you don't have a clue.

As far as aaronburro goes:

Quote :

" ... douchebag ... fucktard ... douchebag ... "

The guy would rather call names than make a cogent argument. That puts him in the hopeless catagory.

1/25/2010 10:10:42 AM

Quote :

"To make a statement like that in the face of facts that show 40% of medical bankruptcies were due to loss of income shows me you don't have a clue."

So are these people unable to work now too? I mean we're not even talking 17k anymore like we were when this discussion first started, most of these are in the 5k range. Is it truly that unreasonable to expect that americans are financially prepared enough to weather a sudden 5k expense? Ultimately what we're talking about is the same thing I've been talking about since the beginning, financial irresponsibility.

1/25/2010 1:04:37 PM

1337 b4k4, you provided the link that explains why the amounts are so low (although, from the sounds of it you didn't read it). Remember this?:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html

Quote :

"... the medical collection industry is so inflexible and will not work out reasonable payment plans for those who can not pay the debt off quickly. Instead, hospitals, doctors, and medical collection agencies rush to the courthouse to file small claim lawsuits (those less than $5,000). ... medical-related businesses turn their delinquent accounts over to collection agencies in 30 or 60 days rather than waiting the traditional 150 days before doing so."

And my response:

Quote :

"... Hospitals are becoming so inflexible that people declare bankruptcy for small amounts just to keep them from garnishing what little income they have left after their illness."

Your own source implies that hospitals are not amenable to payment plans. I'm sure you didn't read the other link I sent, and I know it's anecdotal (although stories like this are everywhere) but here is the highlight:

http://forum.freeadvice.com/debt-collections-84/garnish-unemployment-benefits-463435.html

Quote :

"I am not looking to get out of paying this as I have proof I have been paying regularly. What I don't get is the sudden hostility of the hospital. I spoke with them in person and on the phone and they seem to stick to a rehearsed script. "Pay us in full or get sued". I have asked repeatedly for a payment plan to continue in good faith and am ignored. They have given me payment plans in the past and I have completed them faithfully. There is no longer any respect or understanding in any business. "

Loss of income + unaffordable medical bills + inflexability of hospitals to accept payment plans in lieu garnishing what little income is left (from unemployment for instance) = Bankruptcy for small amounts.

1/25/2010 2:09:03 PM

Again we come back to financial responsibility and security.

Question: How much of a sudden emergency should an average couple be prepared for? Should they be able to come up with the $500 deductible on their car insurance for when it gets broken into? What if their car dies, and it's going to take $1000 to fix it? If their $1,500 refrigerator breaks, is it unreasonable to think that they might be able to replace it with cash? What if they just plain have their 15 year old civic totaled? Should they be able to come up with $3,000 to get themselves a new car? What happens if one of them loses their job because the economy has gone south? How many weeks of stored pay should they have before they're in line at the soup kitchens? I'm trying to gauge where you think it becomes unreasonable to think that an average family should be able to cover emergencies.

Here's a hint. Good financial security is at least 3 months income saved and easily accessible. This is in addition to any retirement and long term savings you may have. Even better would be 6 months income, with a small (1-2k) rainy day fund.

1/25/2010 9:10:15 PM

It reminds me of a story. An aging father and his son were driving around town. The father was about to turn a corner when his son sees another car speeding in their direction. The father starts to turn when his son yells at him to stop him, "Dad, stop! That car is coming at 70 miles per hour!" His father stops, but says, "Well, he shouldn't be going 90 miles per hour."

I agree. Americans are over-extended. It is systematic - that is to say, it is ingrained in the culture. I don't agree with it, although, I'm not exempt. I do think that America's current situation makes for more of an argument in favor of some form of Universal Healthcare than less of one. Lord knows that most other industral nations have come to that conclusion. I've mentioned before that I would like to see something like the Australian model, with a mix of public and private.

The New York Times has an interesting online interactive series called "The Debt Trap". I especially liked the graph showing American debt and savings over time. Look around. You might find it interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/07/20/business/20debt-trap.html

1/25/2010 10:36:32 PM

Who is astro-turfing?

Quote :

"Now that people are paying attention, the Astroturfers are coming out of the woodwork: Jan Chen of Seattle writes to the Northwest Asian Weekly (a small Asian paper serving the Seattle area): As one listens to the Republican anger over health care reform, one can imagine an anti-government protester cheerfully paying premiums on insurance policies that drop you after you make a claim, or happily sauntering out of an emergency room that denied them treatment because of a coverage problem. One can imagine a town hall sign-waver enthusiastically forking over most of their pay to bill collectors after suffering a catastrophic injury, thinking, “Wow, the free market system is great.” Meanwhile, Gloria Elle writes to the Baltimore Chronicle — on the same page as Mark Spivey and Ellie Light: As one listens to the Republican anger over health care reform, one can imagine an anti-government protester cheerfully paying premiums on insurance policies that cancel you for making a claim, or happily sauntering out of an emergency room that denied them treatment because of a coverage problem. One can imagine a town-hall sign-waver enthusiastically forking over most of their pay to bill collectors after suffering a catastrophic injury, thinking, “Wow, the free market system is great.” Jan Chen and Gloria Elle certainly have a similar writing style, don’t they?"

http://patterico.com/2010/01/24/still-more-astroturfing-gloria-elle-and-jan-chen-write-the-same-anti-republican-pro-obama-letter/

1/26/2010 11:58:52 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mTjWg-gh4

1/26/2010 12:14:19 PM

^^ I already posted it.

message_topic.aspx?topic=584160&page=4

1/26/2010 1:01:51 PM

Quote :

"The guy would rather call names than make a cogent argument. That puts him in the hopeless catagory."

it's not like you would read anything I have said anyway. You just post the same things over and over again without regard to whether someone has refuted it. I actually discuss the topic with people who are honest and interested in doing more than spewing DNC talking points

1/27/2010 12:59:08 AM

Maybe you should go back and read ...

1/27/2010 9:45:36 AM

No need to go back and reread what I have already seen you post fifteen times

1/27/2010 6:03:37 PM

Quote :

"I agree. Americans are over-extended. It is systematic - that is to say, it is ingrained in the culture. I don't agree with it, although, I'm not exempt. I do think that America's current situation makes for more of an argument in favor of some form of Universal Healthcare than less of one."

You really think that americans being way to over extended and that over extension being built into our very culture (hello near 0% interest rates!, hello government bailouts of private companies!) is a justification for enacting policies that will allow americans to remain and indeed extend their already over extended selves? Really? That seems to make about as much sense as offering credit to someone who just declared bankruptcy because without credit they can't buy a car or a house.

1/27/2010 7:22:59 PM

so, he now admits that Americans are over-extended. What, then, BoBo, does that say about the effect of medical bills in the cases of bankruptcy that you have cited? The primary and sole cause, or the straw that broke the camel's back?

1/27/2010 7:27:13 PM

My guess is you'll have been in good health. Also, you've, for the most part, always had good work. Lose your job for a year and see if you have the same opinion about over extending yourself. Did Americans become accustomed to a ridiculous style of living yes. However, I would like to see if you do not live the same way. Also, wether your over extended or not has no affect if you come down with a disease and need to spend every last dime you have to stay alive.

1/27/2010 8:53:04 PM

My guess is you'll have been in good health. Also, you've, for the most part, always had good work. Lose your job for a year and see if you have the same opinion about over extending yourself. Did Americans become accustomed to a ridiculous style of living yes. However, I would like to see if you do not live the same way. Also, wether your over extended or not has no affect if you come down with a disease and need to spend every last dime you have to stay alive.

1/27/2010 8:55:30 PM

boo fucking hoo, cry me a river. you and I both know that the majority of the cases out there are NOT the sob story you are painting. That's the whole fucking point. People are over-extended. a 5000 dollar medical shouldn't cause you to "spend every dime you have." Get out of here with that panty-twisting sob story

1/27/2010 9:00:54 PM

Quote :

" ... so, he now admits that Americans are over-extended. What, then, BoBo, does that say about the effect of medical bills in the cases of bankruptcy that you have cited? The primary and sole cause, or the straw that broke the camel's back? ..."

And you said you were reading ... go back and do a recap ... You'll get to it ... I covered all of the numbers (I even hinted at a good right-wing source).

1/27/2010 10:47:35 PM

Conservative proposal on healthcare

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=8516

a few bullets...

Quote :

" * Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families – to purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs. * Provides transparency in health care price and quality data, making this critical information readily available before someone needs health services. * Creates state-based health care exchanges, so individuals and families have a one-stop marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance without being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions. * Equips states with tools like auto-enrollment programs and high-risk pools, so affordable health coverage can be accessed by all. * Addresses health care’s growing strain on small businesses, by allowing them to pool together nationally to offer coverage to their employees. * Encourages the adoption of health information technology and assists states in establishing solutions to medical malpractice litigation. "

1/28/2010 2:35:26 PM

republicans don't have any solutions. they just want to block reform

1/28/2010 6:49:52 PM

Any terminal disease will cause you to spend every dime you have. And you never responded to the always been in good health and had work.

1/29/2010 7:51:59 AM

^^^Some good ideas that should work, along with some ideas that are clearly lip-service and have no practical effectiveness.

1/29/2010 8:54:40 AM

^^ yes, but terminal diseases do NOT account for the vast majority of bankruptcies.

1/29/2010 8:27:27 PM

So government intervention is only good, when states do it? State governments are generally MORE incompetent than the federal government.

It sounds like the republicans are just re-branding the Obama plan, but with states footing the bill instead of the federal government (which means the blue states are going to be supporting the red states, that take more fed money than they give).

And it looks like covering pre-existing conditions is now a GOOD thing.

I do have to hand it to the republicans though, they definitely know how to play the game better than the dems.

1/29/2010 8:38:53 PM

Quote :

"So government intervention is only good, when states do it? "

Strawman. No one has said such a thing...

1/29/2010 8:44:47 PM

It is implicit in the Republicans’ plans. Their plan’s facets are similar to the democrat plan, but with state funding vs. federal funding.

The same things people whined about the “democrats” doing, the republicans are now proposing, but on a state level. Government exchanges to create artificial price floors to screw over the free market, forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions causing insurance companies to raise prices. “auto enrollment” is big, bad government’s evil way of tricking old or dumb people to getting government healthcare too.

1/29/2010 9:01:35 PM

I want 3 things;

1. competition across state lines
2. no mandatory coverage
3. tort reform

those would go a long way in bringing the cost of premiums down IMO, the heart of the problem. lower premiums should equal more people buying policies.

they wouldnt solve all of the problems, but they would be a good start before massive government intervention.

1/29/2010 9:18:15 PM

Yup. As much as I hate tax credits and tax deductions, I wouldn't mind seeing contributions to a HSA being made tax deductible.

1/29/2010 9:21:44 PM

Quote :

"It is implicit in the Republicans’ plans."

Implicit. As in, you are saying what they mean. As in, strawman.

Quote :

"Yup. As much as I hate tax credits and tax deductions, I wouldn't mind seeing contributions to a HSA being made tax deductible."

aren't they already?

1/29/2010 9:23:35 PM

Quote :

"Implicit. As in, you are saying what they mean. As in, strawman. "

Now you’re just trolling, because you realize i’m right. There’s no way you can spin
Democrats Proposing Mandatory Coverage of Pre Existing Conditions != Republicans Proposing Mandatory Coverage of Pre Existing Conditions

[Edited on January 29, 2010 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2010 9:34:06 PM

Yes, but only to just over $3000 per person, which really, if you are going with a very minimal insurance plan is not nearly enough. Probably should have clarified and said, all contributions to a HSA.

[Edited on January 29, 2010 at 9:40 PM. Reason : asdfas]

1/29/2010 9:38:57 PM

Quote :

"Now you’re just trolling, because you realize i’m right. There’s no way you can spin Democrats Proposing Mandatory Coverage of Pre Existing Conditions != Republicans Proposing Mandatory Coverage of Pre Existing Conditions"

Too bad you weren't talking about that. You were talking about someone saying state gov't intervention was good. Which no one said. Thus, strawman

1/29/2010 9:44:31 PM

Okay, I see this is too deep for you, so let’s take it one step at a time: Is the state government forcing a private company to cover something they wouldn’t ordinarily cover, NOT government intervention?

1/29/2010 9:48:09 PM

Quote :

"And you never responded to the always been in good health and had work."

For the record, as I've stated before, my wife went through 13 jobs in 2 years due to her (on going, chronic) health issues. When I speak to the disaster that government aid/medical care is and will be, I speak from personal experiences. When I speak to the generosity and efficiency of charities and private companies, I speak from personal experiences.

I know full well that anecdotes != data, but I am sick of people assuming that just because someone opposes the current legislation (because reform it aint), that they somehow must have been blessed with perfect health, perfect jobs and born rich. It is entirely possible to oppose the current legislation simply on the grounds that it sucks.

1/29/2010 10:24:10 PM

Quote :

"Okay, I see this is too deep for you, so let’s take it one step at a time: Is the state government forcing a private company to cover something they wouldn’t ordinarily cover, NOT government intervention?"

But, again, you are missing the point. No where has anyone, even the Republicans, said that intervention by the state gov't is good. That's why it's a strawman. They might think it necessary, but not good.

^ no. the only reason anyone could possibly be opposed to this stuff is cause they are evil or paid off by the insurance companies, duh

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2010 12:28:02 AM

Obama Feb 4, 2010:

Quote :

""And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it (health-care bill), even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns.""

Oh we're gonna register our concerns in November...don't worry about that Mr. President.

2/6/2010 1:30:02 AM

that's good, but thanks to the new fringe movements you'll either get screwed by them or you'll be part of the fringe screwing others

2/6/2010 9:14:48 AM

^ Where the fuck you been?

2/6/2010 9:43:20 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

2/6/2010 11:21:36 AM

Quote :

"In a last-ditch effort to salvage his overhaul of the sector, the president unveiled a $950 billion plan that lays the groundwork for his party to try pushing its legislation through Congress without Republican support. Instead of paring his ambitions, as some in the White House had recommended, the president proposed a new plan based on what the Senate passed in December, adding more spending, more subsidies and a revised mix of taxes. Mr. Obama's plan, released ahead of a televised health summit with congressional leaders Thursday, didn't include any additional nods to Republican ideas. Republican leaders denounced it, suggesting that the summit is unlikely to lead to bipartisan breakthroughs. White House aides said the president was prepared to incorporate Republican ideas into the framework set by the Democratic bill, almost daring Republicans to remain opposed. The proposal is an attempt to jump-start one of the President's top priorities, which has been nearly paralyzed since Democrats lost their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate on Jan. 19."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081264262957600.html?mod=e2tw

This will be utter disaster for the Democratic Party in November if this passes.

2/22/2010 11:14:47 PM

I love how he has asked for Republican ideas and then completely ignored them in his plan. at least he finally has stepped out and endorsed something

2/22/2010 11:19:05 PM

I'm glad Democrats finally found their balls. Let's see if they actually do anything with them.

2/22/2010 11:38:41 PM

all they can do is pass tax increases at this point. there's a reason it's called BUDGET reconciliation.

2/22/2010 11:40:16 PM

Great! Tax increases are neat. They raise money for public programs!

Did anyone else go to the health care talk with Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic at Mann last night?

[Edited on February 23, 2010 at 8:28 AM. Reason : ///]

2/23/2010 8:23:33 AM

heard this on npr last night

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123979339

basically a study was done to compare the cost of care with the quality of care, and no correlation was found. In fact for some prodcedures, the low cost hospitals were better than the high cost in terms of quality. In addition, they looked at congestive heart failure and found that while the mortality rate per 100 patients in the lowest cost hospital was 10.8 and 9.8 in the higest cost hospital, the lowest cost for the procedure was $1,522 and the highest cost was $18,927.

[Edited on February 23, 2010 at 9:44 AM. Reason : a]

2/23/2010 9:44:21 AM

Quote :

"This will be utter disaster for the Democratic Party in November if this passes."

Maybe.

It will certainly be a disaster if they pass nothing. Why should I vote for people incapable of governing?


This is what the Democrats were voted in to do. The whims of the people have shifted slightly against "Healthcare Reform (TM)," but they still support most of the individual parts of the plan being proposed by Obama. Just pass it; the people will like it when they see its effects.

2/23/2010 10:48:41 AM

Insurance "reform" != healthcare reform. Hell, the insurance reforms in the bill aren't even insurance reforms. They're just alot of really bad, half-baked ideas.

2/23/2010 10:52:16 AM

Quote :

"Insurance "reform" != healthcare reform"

It's an enormous piece of it.

2/23/2010 10:58:25 AM

no, actually, its not. Insurance is actually the least important part of healthcare reform and could be fixed with minor legislation. Time and again people touting insurance reforms over healthcare reforms have ignored the actual costs of healthcare (see the npr thing i posted above). They do it out of either ignorance or because its much much easier to sell people on legislation that fights evil insurance companies rather than hospitals gouging patients.

It drives me absolutely insane that every time a provider raises costs, all the "regulators" look at is the profit margin, and not why costs are going up in the first place.

If you wanted to fix insurance a national exchange that let people find insurance providers anywhere in the country + tax deductions for individuals would solve most of the problems.

Then they could actually start taking the time to fix the cost issues.

2/23/2010 11:10:52 AM

Does anyone have any drinking game ideas for Thursdays night's infomercial, er "summit"?

On a more serious note, I think the general idea of this whole televised debate thing is great. (The picking and choosing of when and for what issues is the problem.) More representatives should have to actually stand up, show their face, and say "yes" or "no" to issues. How long until we get British House of Commons style showdowns?

2/23/2010 4:05:34 PM