June 8, 2009
Most Common Cause Of Bankruptcy Is Catastrophic Medical Bills
Why I drink.
Here is the simple reason while there will never be any kind of serious healthcare reform in this country absent a war: no one cares. About healthcare itself-- it's just a proxy for ideology. Everything you hear are lies, damned lies, and Harvard.
I'm puzzled by the term "U.S. researchers." They are Harvard academic researchers funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Is this to distinguish them from "French researchers" who presumably have more/less credibility depending on your politics; or is it a slip of the tongue suggesting they are actually working for the U.S. government?
What do the authors want to be.... oh, never mind.
II.
60% is a big number. Wow. I didn't realize it was so high! What I need now is a striking metaphor that will move me solidly towards populism:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.
I'm puzzled by the term "U.S. researchers." They are Harvard academic researchers funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Is this to distinguish them from "French researchers" who presumably have more/less credibility depending on your politics; or is it a slip of the tongue suggesting they are actually working for the U.S. government?
...Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States...
What do the authors want to be.... oh, never mind.
II.
60% is a big number. Wow. I didn't realize it was so high! What I need now is a striking metaphor that will move me solidly towards populism:
"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."Nice. Sounds a lot like
"Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."
which is what the the same guy said four years ago. Either Gates got richer, Buffett got poorer, or they haven't learned much after 4 years of careful study into this problem.
That would be a sign that numbers are less important than ideology.
III.
I get conflicted because I'm for the same thing he is for, a single payer system (with modifications), but studies like this one and people like this guy make me react negatively to it. It actually makes me want to drink. I realize it's shooting my face to spite my teeth, or something, but these academics who stagnate in their sycophancy drive me straight to the rum.
The study is not published yet, so I have to rely on the news report, which is like relying on your wife's lover to tell you which bottle isn't the cyanide. But here goes:
It's a good guess that people were in debt with other things as well, right? Credit cards? Car loans? Home equity loans? But blaming it on medical expenses is a more politically lucrative spin. No, I can't prove it. I can, however, prove the authors are up to nonsense: in their last study (four years ago) with similar findings, they conflated "medical bills" with missing work due to illness even if there were no medical bills. They didn't have high bills; they had no income.
This isn't an argument for universal healthcare; it's an argument for disability insurance. Which, by the way, even doctors don't bother to get. It's expensive and complicated and boring.
Disability insurance doesn't lend itself to ideological battles. You can't get self-righteous about it. You can't hate Pharma for it. You can't get a Harvard faculty position for studying it. Truth doesn't come from God or physics, it comes from the potential of grant money.
It's good to keep this in mind as you hear people argue violently about something they neither understand, nor really care about.
IV.
Here's what was buried in the paper, towards the end:
It's hard to know how you'll end an article once you permit yourself to ignore the facts and make them submit to your worldview. But a good guess would be:
Do any of these clowns realize that this example is precisely why universal healthcare is the wrong solution to the problems they are describing?
(also, see my response to a comment, below; then final word here)
-----------------------------
http://twitter.com/thelastpsych
That would be a sign that numbers are less important than ideology.
III.
I get conflicted because I'm for the same thing he is for, a single payer system (with modifications), but studies like this one and people like this guy make me react negatively to it. It actually makes me want to drink. I realize it's shooting my face to spite my teeth, or something, but these academics who stagnate in their sycophancy drive me straight to the rum.
The study is not published yet, so I have to rely on the news report, which is like relying on your wife's lover to tell you which bottle isn't the cyanide. But here goes:
Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000I realize I may be out of touch with the common man because I'm a wealthy industrialist who wears a monocle and a top hat, but are you telling me that 60% of all of the bankruptcies in the U.S. were because of $5000?
It's a good guess that people were in debt with other things as well, right? Credit cards? Car loans? Home equity loans? But blaming it on medical expenses is a more politically lucrative spin. No, I can't prove it. I can, however, prove the authors are up to nonsense: in their last study (four years ago) with similar findings, they conflated "medical bills" with missing work due to illness even if there were no medical bills. They didn't have high bills; they had no income.
This isn't an argument for universal healthcare; it's an argument for disability insurance. Which, by the way, even doctors don't bother to get. It's expensive and complicated and boring.
Disability insurance doesn't lend itself to ideological battles. You can't get self-righteous about it. You can't hate Pharma for it. You can't get a Harvard faculty position for studying it. Truth doesn't come from God or physics, it comes from the potential of grant money.
It's good to keep this in mind as you hear people argue violently about something they neither understand, nor really care about.
IV.
Here's what was buried in the paper, towards the end:
Many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness, work, and family. Dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult. We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as "medical bankruptcies."
It's hard to know how you'll end an article once you permit yourself to ignore the facts and make them submit to your worldview. But a good guess would be:
In 1591 Pope Gregory XIV fell gravely ill. His doctors prescribed pulverized gold and gems. According to legend, the resulting depletion of the papal treasury is reflected in his unadorned plaster sarcophagus in St. Peter's Basilica. Four centuries later, solidly middle-class Americans still face impoverishment following a serious illness.
Do any of these clowns realize that this example is precisely why universal healthcare is the wrong solution to the problems they are describing?
(also, see my response to a comment, below; then final word here)
-----------------------------
http://twitter.com/thelastpsych
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
42 Comments