Obama's State of the Union Address

[Richard Masters]

The point is that you don't have to go bankrupt because you have a public option. What public option exists to keep people without health insurance avoid bankruptcy.

A.) Doesn't address my point. B.) Not something for you to brag about. Citizens who live in nations with UHC don't go bankrupt over health care. Our system is so FUBAR that even having insurance won't protect you.

That's because health care doesn't protect you from all health problems.

And you actually think that mitigates the fact that people without insurance also go bankrupt. Never mind the simple fact that many people who can't afford health care are already bankrupt.

How was this not a problem for 2000 years?

So, lets address my point:

RandFan: 50% of bankruptcies are health care related.
Richard Masters: 72% of those did have health insurance.
RandFan: Then that means that 28% of the 50% DON'T have insurance, right?

Please to point out anything that is not true?

Well, I made a mistake and it's really 78%. So 22% of those people don't have health insurance, but as Ziggurat pointed out, the study stretches the definition of bankruptcies caused by health issues to mean that if you owed more than $5000 in health-related expenses you declared bankruptcy because of health problems which is a non-sequitur. The authors mistake correlation with causation and furthermore stretch the definition of bankruptcy due to health issues.

 

[Richard Masters]

And yet you are driving on a suspended license.

No. I'm driving on a suspended vehicle registration and that's debatable.

I cited a debate between 2 college deans on CSPAN yesterday. Care to cite your own source of information?

Reality.

No one currently. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR THE HOSPITAL TO TURN ANY PATIENT AWAY. Are you really having that hard of a time following this discussion? Let me try again:

Take your pick:

Mandatory health insurance, or,
Allow hospitals to turn away non-paying patients even if that means they die on the steps, or,
Paying patients have to cover the costs of patients who don't pay.

What's the difference between 1 and 3? You are still presenting a false trilemma.

It's not optional for a hospital to turn away an uninsured patient and it is not optional if an uninsured individual has the bad luck to suffer a serious medical problem.

So why screw over the hospitals and people who do pay for their own health care and insurance?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since the definitions are overlapping, and most of those categories are overly broad, no, it doesn't really tell us the breakdown we want. But I will note that the percentage of people who said that medical bills were the reason for bankruptcy stands at 29%, which is indeed far below the 49% or 69% numbers they used, and is probably much closer to the figure we're interested in. Evidently you think there's a pandemic of people driven to bankruptcy by medical care costs who don't even know that this is why they're bankrupt.

Table 2 showed 57% of the bankruptcies had nothing to do with your complaints about the methodology. Saying this was overlapping and unclear defies the facts presented in the table.

Claiming I said there is a pandemic is a straw man. I merely said there was a crisis in health care coverage and the Health Care Bill was needed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's because health care doesn't protect you from all health problems.

And that healthcare doesn't make us immortal and impervious to disease and injury is your argument against increasing access to healthcare?

It was a direct response to Travis who claimed that people have been wanting to buy insurance. So I noted that I'd been trying to buy a car for nine years, but that doesn't mean the government should make everyone buy one.

So I guessed right about what you were talking about, and I pointed out to you the very stark differences between the individual mandate for minimum essential healthcare coverage and a hypothetical individual mandate for buying a car.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. I'm driving on a suspended vehicle registration and that's debatable.

Reality.

What's the difference between 1 and 3? You are still presenting a false trilemma.

So why screw over the hospitals and people who do pay for their own health care and insurance?

Why is this so difficult for you?

Who do you think pays for a hospital's bad debt?

 

[Richard Masters]

And that healthcare doesn't make us immortal and impervious to disease and injury is your argument against increasing access to healthcare?

No, it's just an observation on why people who have healthcare still declare bankruptcy.

So I guessed right about what you were talking about, and I pointed out to you the very stark differences between the individual mandate for minimum essential healthcare coverage and a hypothetical individual mandate for buying a car.

So you did. But it had little to do with what I was getting across to Travis.

 

[RandFan]

That's because health care doesn't protect you from all health problems.

UHC will.

How was this not a problem for 2000 years?

Lack of technology and medical expertise. In the past there were not expensive procedures to save loved ones so they just died.

Well, I made a mistake and it's really 78%. So 22% of those people don't have health insurance, but as Ziggurat pointed out, the study stretches the definition of bankruptcies caused by health issues to mean that if you owed more than $5000 in health-related expenses you declared bankruptcy because of health problems which is a non-sequitur. The authors mistake correlation with causation and furthermore stretch the definition of bankruptcy due to health issues.

Skeptic Ginger adequately addresses this BUT to move the discussion forward I accepted the argument to advance the discussion. Please see post #227. The point fails. People are harmed for no good reason.

 

[Richard Masters]

Why is this so difficult for you?

Who do you think pays for a hospital's bad debt?

Apparently I do. But forcing me do it by law doesn't make it any more fair.

 

[Richard Masters]

UHC will.

That's absurd. My own close relative is dying from cancer and no amount of universal healthcare is going to help her if the technology to help her doesn't exist.

Lack of technology and medical expertise. In the past there were not expensive procedures to save loved ones so they just died.

Skeptic Ginger adequately addresses this BUT to move the discussion forward I accepted the argument to advance the discussion. Please see post #227. The point fails. People are harmed for no good reason.

But SG points out that people cannot be denied healthcare, so there's no reason for the to die as a result of denied healthcare. Also, now you are moving the goalposts. Now you are saying that people are harmed for no good reason. The reason is because they chose not to spend their money on healthcare, or because they couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean that UHC is the best solution.

 

[RandFan]

Apparently I do. But forcing me do it by law doesn't make it any more fair.

It's reasonable.

• You live in a society.
• Social species evolved cooperation to benefit everyone.
• Having healthy citizens is good for everyone.
• Providing healthcare that won't bankrupt millions is good for everyone.
• Social services and a strong social safety net are negatively correlated to third world nations.
• We spend more per GDP on healthcare than nations with UHC (see post #227).

 

[RandFan]

That's absurd. My own close relative is dying from cancer and no amount of universal healthcare is going to help her if the technology to help her doesn't exist.

It WILL help avoid bankruptcy. The discussion is about the harm of bankruptcy.

But SG points out that people cannot be denied healthcare, so there's no reason for the to die as a result of denied healthcare.

Straw man. We are talking about bankruptcy.

Also, now you are moving the goalposts. Now you are saying that people are harmed for no good reason.

Facts:

1. People who can afford health insurance go bankrupt because insurance is often not enough (see post #227)
2. People who CAN'T buy health insurance are harmed when health care costs bankrupt them.

The reason is because they chose not to spend their money on healthcare, or because they couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean that UHC is the best solution.

Given the facts, unless you claim that the above premises (#1 and #2 are false) then your premise about choice is flat out wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Table 2 showed 57% of the bankruptcies had nothing to do with your complaints about the methodology.

No it doesn't. That 57% includes three overlapping categories: people who self-describe their bankruptcy as being due to medical bills, people who mortgaged their home to pay medical bills, and people who had medical expenses >$5000 or 10% of income. But that $5000 limit is indeed one of my complaints about the methodology. The $1000 threshold that they used elsewhere is obviously worse in this regard, but the $5000 limit is still very, VERY problematic.

The thing is, even if you don't agree with my complaint, it remains a fact that the 57% number includes a category that I object to. So you have either failed to understand the paper, what I've said, or both. Which is why I really don't care if I impress you: you're sloppy, and don't pay attention. And that's the charitable interpretation, assuming that you're being honest.

Saying this was overlapping and unclear defies the facts presented in the table.

Not so. Look at the table again: the 57% number is a combination of the first three categories, meaning it counts people who fell into any of those three categories. But the categories are not mutually exclusive, so we should expect some overlap. And the numbers bear that out, since if we simply add the percentages (which would be appropriate if there were no overlap) then you don't get 57%, you get 69.4%. So there must be overlap, but we don't know how much between the different categories (in particular, between the self-described and those who took out mortgages). Once again, you haven't been paying attention.

Claiming I said there is a pandemic is a straw man. I merely said there was a crisis in health care coverage and the Health Care Bill was needed.

That's nice. It's also completely irrelevant to everything I've said in this thread.

 

[RandFan]

I screwed the pooch big time.

In two earlier posts I made a claim about the number of bankruptcies. It assumed every American had filed for bankruptcy. Doh. I was off by a factor of about 200. Not a red letter day for me.

I apologize.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently I do. But forcing me do it by law doesn't make it any more fair.

So it's more fair to make paying customers pay for the freeloaders than to have a law making the freeloaders pay for themselves? You can't be thinking this through.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But SG points out that people cannot be denied healthcare, so there's no reason for the to die as a result of denied healthcare. Also, now you are moving the goalposts. Now you are saying that people are harmed for no good reason. The reason is because they chose not to spend their money on healthcare, or because they couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean that UHC is the best solution.

Providing health care to the uninsured through EDs is the most expensive, inefficient way to do it. People don't get chemotherapy or other services so it is incomplete care. And as I pointed out, paying for this care is unfairly and unevenly burdening people who pay for medical care.

Are you equally unhappy that the fire department is paid for through your tax dollars? You are forced to pay for fire fighting insurance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No it doesn't. That 57% includes three overlapping categories: people who self-describe their bankruptcy as being due to medical bills, people who mortgaged their home to pay medical bills, and people who had medical expenses >$5000 or 10% of income. But that $5000 limit is indeed one of my complaints about the methodology. The $1000 threshold that they used elsewhere is obviously worse in this regard, but the $5000 limit is still very, VERY problematic.

The thing is, even if you don't agree with my complaint, it remains a fact that the 57% number includes a category that I object to. So you have either failed to understand the paper, what I've said, or both. Which is why I really don't care if I impress you: you're sloppy, and don't pay attention. And that's the charitable interpretation, assuming that you're being honest.

You stated you had an objection to the $1,000 part of the definition. When I point out that is wrong, you move the goalpost. I don't think it is me who is being dishonest.

Not so. Look at the table again: the 57% number is a combination of the first three categories, meaning it counts people who fell into any of those three categories. But the categories are not mutually exclusive, so we should expect some overlap. And the numbers bear that out, since if we simply add the percentages (which would be appropriate if there were no overlap) then you don't get 57%, you get 69.4%. So there must be overlap, but we don't know how much between the different categories (in particular, between the self-described and those who took out mortgages). Once again, you haven't been paying attention.

Where did I say the 57% didn't include overlap? It included overlap from those 3 categories only. Further down the table other overlapping combinations are described. You are still exaggerating the problems with the study.

Evidently you think there's a pandemic of people driven to bankruptcy by medical care costs who don't even know that this is why they're bankrupt.

Claiming I said there is a pandemic is a straw man. I merely said there was a crisis in health care coverage and the Health Care Bill was needed.

That's nice. It's also completely irrelevant to everything I've said in this thread.

Riiiight.

 

[Multivac]

Assuming "a good bedtime story" is just a pejorative way of talking about his speechmaking abilities. . . .

Why shouldn't it be? The ability to communicate and persuade--good oratorical skills--has long been considered a big plus for the job of POTUS. (What was it they used to call Ronald Reagan?)

Brain dead?

 

[Ziggurat]

You stated you had an objection to the $1,000 part of the definition. When I point out that is wrong, you move the goalpost. I don't think it is me who is being dishonest.

So you're not dishonest, just sloppy. I gave the $1000 definition (which they do use elsewhere in the paper) as an example of what's wrong with the paper. Raising the threshold to $5000 doesn't fix that problem.

Riiiight.

29% of respondants thought medical bills drove them to bankruptcy. You decided that the 54% figure was more accurate. That means you think that 15% of bankruptcies involve people who are driven bankrupt by medical costs but don't even know that this is what bankrupted them. That's... crazy, really. What was your response when I pointed this out? Not to defend the 54% number, but to move the goalpost entirely.

indeed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're exaggerating the flaws in the study, Zig. It's not a matter of my being "sloppy". Also, I don't believe the study said the medical bills were the sole or primary cause of all the bankruptcies, they said medical bills contributed in a significant way. Again you exaggerate in order to discount the problem of inability for millions to afford health care or health care insurance.

CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies

(emphasis mine)

 

[RandFan]

You're exaggerating the flaws in the study, Zig. It's not a matter of my being "sloppy". Also, I don't believe the study said the medical bills were the sole or primary cause of all the bankruptcies, they said medical bills contributed in a significant way. Again you exaggerate in order to discount the problem of inability for millions to afford health care or health care insurance.

(emphasis mine)

Why should medical bills ever contribute to bankruptcy for A.) Those that have insurance? B.) Those that cant afford it?

We pay more for health care as a percentage of GDP than other nations. What exactly is the benefit (trade off)? I just don't get it. Other than what seems to me to be an irrational belief that govt can only make things worse or the failure to get the relationship of healthy and flourishing societies I don't understand the argument against.

Okay, let's try this, could someone please explain to me why we don't have significant problems with illegal Canadian immigration? They have UHC, surely it's a nightmare, right?