Pajamas Media

135 Comments

1. Shef Rogers:

You just don’t get it. Health care is rationed NOW. We ration it by price. If you’re not rich, you get bad care, or none at all. I guess none of you people ever had to go to a county hospital because you couldn’t afford anything better. I have. If you want to see the nightmare of rationing, just put a camera in the waiting room of one of those clinics.
Do you ever look around you? Do you ever actually notice what’s going on around you? Turn off Fox and drive to the nearest free clinic or county clinic. Or just ask minimum-wage workers with no benefits what kind of medical care they get. The answer is simple: “None.”

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:40 am 2. Wacky Hermit:

Shef, don’t YOU get it? Price isn’t personal. It doesn’t make its decisions based on its pet causes or popular sentiment or indigestion. Those county hospitals you speak of are the best counter-argument for letting politics (county politics, in this case) run the show.

Price barriers can be overcome through private donations, which can be raised very quickly. (A friend of mine had a sister-in-law who recently died of brain cancer, totally uninsured but her expenses were taken care of by community donations and fundraisers.) But political barriers take long, knock-down drag-out fights to overcome. I suppose you are hoping that since you’re too lazy to get out there and raise funds for those minimum wage workers’ care, you can force everyone else to pay for it?

Aug 24, 2009 - 2:07 am 3. Metz:

Shef, not trying to sound uncompassionate here, and I realize the answer is not 100%, but how many of the people you describe are there by their own choices and decisions? I’m sorry, but once you reach a certain point in your life, and you’re still at a minimum wage job, you have to look at yourself, you cannot blame society for everything.

And how many of these people have the latest cell phone, ipod, quads, boats, etc. etc.? Here again, I realize the answer is not 100%. Neither is it 0%. They have chosen to spend their money on something they prioritized more than healthcare. This is America, that is their right. What is not right is to continue to take more and more from the productive members of society and give it to those that are deemed “less fortunate”. These constant attempts to strive for some Utopian view of the world have to stop.

People need to learn to be accountable for their actions and decisions, again. If there is a need to “help” them, then help them. Trying to provide something in perpetuity is not helping them. What would your kids learn if you did their homework for them everynight? The answer, nothing. But yet we try to do the same thing here, expecting they will suddenly want to give up the freebies and go to work to earn the same thing. Just like your kid and his homework, not going to happen.

If you take away everyones incentive to achieve, eventually nobody will.

Aug 24, 2009 - 2:36 am 4. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Shed Rogers
RE: Speaking of ‘Not Getting It’….

You just don’t get it. Health care is rationed NOW. We ration it by price. If you’re not rich, you get bad care, or none at all. — She Rogers

….you’re either totally ignorant—and proud of it—, i.e., my working defintion of ’stupid’ or you’re a liar.

No hospital can turn away someone who is in severe pain or at risk of life or limb. It’s the LAW.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The fools are ALWAYS with US.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:02 am 5. Pragmatist:

These are just SOME of the LIES and contradictions the Obamnation are spewing when they try to see you THEIR Health Care boondoggle. Snake Oil peddlers the lot of them

Abortion is not covered in the bill. Women’s reproductive rights is covered.

Illegal immigrants are not covered in the bill. The bill covers all uninsured people.

The plan is going to save us money. The bill provides free health insurance for all (45.7 million) uninsured people.

You can keep current health plan. If your employer cancels your plan you must move into the gov’t plan.

The plan is going to fix the economy and the deficit. The plan will cost somewhere between 1 to 3 trillion the first 10 yrs.

There’s a crisis. The plan needs to be passed before August. The plan doesn’t begin until 2013.

There will be no cuts in Medicare. Reimbursements for Medicare will be cut.

The public option will not compete with private insurers. The gov’t option will provide a competitive option.

Republicans are lying and misleading the public. Obama is the biggest liar of all.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:12 am 6. Mike2:

Excellent article and one that needs to be widely read by the general public.

1. Shef Rogers:
You just don’t get it. Health care is rationed NOW. We ration it by price. If you’re not rich, you get bad care, or none at all.

A total lie. The vast majority of the citizens of this country are covered by employer or union provided insurance. Every person over 65 is covered by Medicare unless they haven’t worked enough quarters to get Social Security. Every person on welfare is covered by Medicaid. As Chuck Pelto points out, no hospital can turn away emergency patients regardless of income. Of course you know all this as well as the rest of us. Good try at propagandizing anyway.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:31 am 7. Pelaut:

I wish it were rationed by price.

If dollars reflected relative value of the individual, which they would if we didn’t have meddling policticians screwing up a free economy, then the ability to pay would truly be natural rationing.

Aug 24, 2009 - 4:49 am 8. Paul -Indiana:

Why is anyone surprised?

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:03 am 9. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Paul -Indiana
RE: Surprised?

Why is anyone surprised? — Paul -Indiana

I’m not.

But a number of other people are going to be ’surprised’ tonight.

There’s a town-hall meeting here tonight. Being put on by the League of Women Voters, as our congressperson is a Milk-Carton Politician: no one has seen him in public since August 3d.

I’m going to research this some more and offer it up tonight, if the report follows through as being accurate.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. This is going to be a ’shock’ to ONE particular advocate of ‘death panel’ healthcare. And she’s allegedly a ‘doctor’.

I have to wonder if she knew Kevorkian…..

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:22 am 10. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jeff Emanuel
RE: These Two Instances

Two cases of “public option” administrators rejecting patient requests for lifesaving or life-extending drugs (and instead offering to fund those patients’ assisted suicides) reached the mainstream media in the last two weeks. — Jeff Emanuel

Could you please provide urls to the items in “the mainstream media”? Or the names of the people?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth is coming out.....]
R

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:25 am 11. Ed Wallis:

Chuck #4 and others:

It’s time to change the laws so finally individuals take on the personal consequences of their actions – such as not buying health insurance.

If I got the gist of #1, it was that, “gee, folks don’t get world class service out in Timbuktu for free”.

WELL, DUH.

If there should be any service whatsoever provided “at no cost to the individual” (it’s not “free” for the rest of us who have to pay…), I see no reason why it should be provided at the same level/degree as that provided for those spending their lives paying for insurance.

(p.s. to Chuck: nice to read you at the I Am Sorry I…site…tee hee!)

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:25 am 12. Fantom:

1. Shef Rogers:

And that is what you would foist upon us all. The 91% who are responsible enough to see to their own life. Typical of a , give me liberal.

I have a suggestion for you. Get a job. SHEESH. Grow a set and understand YOU are the problem.. not our current health care system.

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:29 am 13. cedarhill:

Shef is a troll. Don’t waste your time or those that read PJ media in bashing him. It’s what feeds the trolls. Be polite and just add, after your main comment, “tsk, tsk, poor Shef”.

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:35 am 14. RAH:

An uninsured person would get an appendectomy and other other hospital in any other state.

Hospitals gives care and worry about payment later. Usually the high premium and payment of private insured patients cover the cost of the uninsured. Cost shifting has been going on forever.

Medicare reimbursment being slashed has been cost shifted to private insureds. That is one reason why private insurance premiums have risen so much.

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:49 am 15. Kazooskibum:

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:56 am 16. Jamie W.:

I can’t think of a fairer or more productive way to ration things than by price. It’s worked well for thousands of years, with the side benefit of gradually bringing better and better technology to those classes who at first can’t afford treatments. Money, not government, drives technological advancement; for example, ultrasound, available only to the rich in the 70s but available to every American at a reasonable price today. Or breast cancer treatments, which were unavailable at any price to my grandmother in the 70s but saved my aunt just a couple years ago.

I don’t think random rationing by government bean counters will have the same effect on future technological breakthroughs – do you?

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:10 am 17. Sonny:

We have many options in our country and I am thankful for them. One of those options is preventative health care.

Currently, what our family spends to keep ourselves healthy is more than a good health care policy would cost. That is the choice we have made. Have we had to forego other “pleasures” that life offers? Of course, but that is our decision.

Proper health care needs to start in the prime of life, not waiting until the damage to your health has been done. By quitting smoking, following a good diet, getting plenty of exercise, and investing in vitamins and supplements suited to your physical condition will provide you with many long years of enjoyment.

Try it! Then you can tell Obama and his health czar to cram it!

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:24 am 18. Roberrt V:

I am not too suprised that the government did exactly what any insurance agency would do. THe only difference being, you can bring some type of lawsuit against an insurance agency for doing it. No luck doing that to a state or federal government.

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:38 am 19. NJSoldier:

One of the obvious results of a nationwide implementation of Obamacare will be attacks on bureaucrats. At some point they will inform parents that their sick child isn’t worth treating or a husband that his sick young wife should just die – and the parent / husband goes “postal.” (Ironic that the slang term for a killing spree is named after another failed government program)

So add to the huge cost of government healthcare a security detail for the bureaucrats who will be deciding who lives and dies.

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:41 am 20. Now and Then:

4. Chuck Pelto:
“No hospital can turn away someone who is in severe pain or at risk of life or limb. It’s the LAW.”

I’m not surprised that you’re willing to be so transparently obtuse. Sure, if you walk into an emergency room carrying your foot in your hand, you’ll get enough treatment to save your life. If you walk into a doctor’s office with macular degeneration or COPD or neuromuscular complications and you have no insurance, guess what, you’re on your own. THAT’S the law – of free market healthcare.

The truth is tough. You’re not.

[That fool is ALWAYS with US.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:54 am 21. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ed Wallis
RE: [OT] Those ‘Sorry’ Folk

Chuck: nice to read you at the I Am Sorry I…site…tee hee! — Ed Wallis

I’m THERE!!!?!??!!

They published it? I thought they didn’t as I couldn’t find it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every man supposes himself not to be fully understood or appreciated. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:57 am 22. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Kazooskibum
RE: The Democrats….

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise. — Kazooskibum

….are made up of two groups:

[1] Latter-day Bolsheviks.
[2] The Useful Fools the first group takes advantage of.

If we decide to declare bolsheviks ‘criminals’….it’ll have to be on a case-by-case basis, e.g., the thugs who beat up Gladney outside the Russ Carnahan (D-MO) town hall ‘beating’ earlier this month.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime doesn't pay....as well as politics.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:03 am 23. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Now and Then
RE: Obtuse?

I’m not surprised that you’re willing to be so transparently obtuse. — Now and Then

Look who’s talking.

Shep was talking about not being able to get medical care. I pointed out his lie.

You want to get into the nitty-gritty? Fine by me.

Tell the guy in your scenario to (1) get a job, (2) earn some money, and (3) buy insurance….if it doesn’t come with the job.

The same goes for YOU. As well as it does for me.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Fools are always with US.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:10 am 24. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Now and Then

I suspect that Now and Then either doesn’t HAVE a job or would rather he didn’t have to work. I.e., he wants everything handed to him by a father-figure he believes would be the government.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians Americans finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens America ceased to be free. -- Edward Gibbon ]

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:14 am 25. The UnPatriot:

It is true that many things are less available in the stix – by definition. I have several family member that can attest to this fact. Please explain, however, how this will change with a so called public option/Obamacare. It will not.

–The UnPatriot

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:15 am 26. jerryofva:

To add to the sheff-bashing we all know that for various reasons 15% of the population is without health insurance at any point in time. From a 2006 CBO study we know that only 8 million or 2.67% are long term uninsured and are probably eligible for Medicaid. But we also know that just because you don’t have insurance it doesn’t mean that you can’t have a doctor.

In Canada 15% of the people don’t have primary care physician because Canada doesn’t have enough doctors. The primary care doctor is the entry point for medical care in Canada. No primary care physician, no real medical care is available except in the ER.

The Democratic advocates of a Canadian or British type National Health Service always make the claim that we already ration care now by price. But rationing actually refers to non-market/non-price allocation of resources (see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing) The Democrats are trying to equate market pricing with rationing as a smokescreen to hide their intentions of implementing Dr. Emanual’s social allocation of medical resources.

Just remember that the Government rationing scheme only applies to the bottom 95% and not the top. Even Sarah Palin will be placed in the does not apply category.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:23 am 27. aloysiusmiller:

There is one thing that gets obscured in the debate. There is a death panel. There always has been and will be a death panel. The debate is who controls the death panel. One upon a long time ago the death panel was the patient and his family. In recent years the death panel has included the insurance company. The family can overrule the insurance company with money. The government wants exclusive and final control of the death panel. They want patients out, the family out, insurance companies out, and charities out. Just a bureaucrat.

THIS IS INTOLERABLE.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:30 am 28. Chuck Pelto:

TO: NJSoldier
RE: THAT Is Why….

One of the obvious results of a nationwide implementation of Obamacare will be attacks on bureaucrats. At some point they will inform parents that their sick child isn’t worth treating or a husband that his sick young wife should just die – and the parent / husband goes “postal.” — NJSoldier

….I expect to see a major effort at eliminating the personal owner-ship of firearms in the not too distant future. Perhaps in the next 12 months. More likely sooner than later. After all the 2010 election cycle will, at this rate, see Congress be turned back to Republican control. And such would SERIOUSLY upset Obama’s ‘Plan’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. -- George Washington]

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:38 am 29. Jack:

Hey Shef,

Welcome to government run health care. You unintendedly helped make the anti-socialized medicine case.

Yes, I have used public health clinics several times in my youth and experienced the long lines and waiting periods, rationing, etc…but I was eventually treated! Having experienced these public health clinics is a good example of the conditions we can expect if universal health care is passed.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:43 am 30. Bob - Michigan:

You’re right Shef. I live in a very rural area of northern Michigan (100 miles to Wal-Mart, 60 miles to nearest police protection, etc.) and have had to “endure” the “horror” of our failed health care system at the nearest hospital. Compassionate and knowledgable staff, the latest in medical equipment, quick surgery scheduling suited to my schedule, specialists in every aspect of my condition, bright, clean, and cheerful physical surroundings, personal follow-up, etc. It was awful! Of course, my wife and I, being the jerks that we are, determined many years ago to work hard and always be sure to provide ourselves and our family with quality health coverage. What idiots! We should have spent our time sitting on our butts and waiting for our tax-paying neighbors to provide us with “free” nationalized health care.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:48 am 31. jharp:

I’ll not take the time to address your lies about rationing and the complete nonsense of your rankings.

The facts are the American health care system is the most expensive in the world. By double. For the same level of care.

And we are the only country where you can lose everything over an illness.

And we are the only country who doesn’t cover everyone.

And we are the only country without some sort of public/single payer plan.

And yet we have a public plan for our seniors that far outperforms the private sector and the ignorant teabaggers are too damn dumb to see Obamacare as opening this public plan to a bigger percentage of our citizens.

How you bozos can’t see this is stunning ignorance. Stunning.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:49 am 32. Now and Then:

23 and 24 Pelto . . .

“Tell the guy in your scenario to (1) get a job, (2) earn some money, and (3) buy insurance….if it doesn’t come with the job.”

But what if he just got laid off? And lost his insurance? Or maybe he just got a new job but can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Or what if he has a good honest job but can’t pay for insurance because he’s putting a couple of kids through college, or paying for elder care for his mother, or any of a hundred other classic American stories.

That’s the nitty gritty . . . and you can’t handle it. You got caught short in both truth and scope. That’s what happens when ideology overcomes authenticity, as evidenced not just by your fallacious claims but by your need to enter a second post just to insult me with nonsense about not having a job or wanting handouts – neither of which is true. That is not argumentation or even conversation. It is sad and desperate and formulaic – the kind of thing lunatic birthers do. And it will continue to be the downfall of the right.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:49 am 33. jerryofva:

Jharp says: “And yet we have a public plan for our seniors that far outperforms the private sector ”

Really? Is that why it is becoming increasingly difficult for seniors to find a doctor? Is that why that seniors now constitute the biggest component of people seeking emergency rooms for primary care?

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:02 am 34. jharp:

Now and Then:

“That is not argumentation or even conversation. It is sad and desperate and formulaic – the kind of thing lunatic birthers do. And it will continue to be the downfall of the right.”

So true of all of the wingnut nonsense. And the downfall of the right is here and getting worse. And yet they keep digging.

I truly can’t understand it. The wingnuts can’t be that ignorant, can they?

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:02 am 35. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Now and Then
RE: You TRULY ARE….

But what if he just got laid off? And lost his insurance? — Now and Then

….fulfilling my working definition of ’stupid’.

Never heard of COBRA, eh.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....Now and Then is 'ignorant and proud of it', i.e., 'stupid'.....]

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:05 am 36. venividivici:

Really? Is that why it is becoming increasingly difficult for seniors to find a doctor? Is that why that seniors now constitute the biggest component of people seeking emergency rooms for primary care?

Yeah, if I’m a doctor, I’m not exactly clamoring to participate in a program that takes forever to reimburse me at a miserly rate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:09 am 37. jharp:

Chuck Pelto:

But what if he just got laid off? And lost his insurance? — Now and Then

….fulfilling my working definition of ’stupid’.

“Never heard of COBRA, eh.”

Thank you kindly, Chuck, for answering my question “they can’t be that ignorant?” Obviously you can.

Would you care to explain to me how one pays for COBRA with no job and no income.

And if they are fortunate enough to be able to afford COBRA, what do you propose be done when the COBRA runs out?

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:14 am 38. Now and Then:

35 Pelto

Yes, Chuck, we’ve all heard of COBRA. We all know it’s temporary. And that your premiums essentially double the day it starts because your employer no longer contributes. And that a person making $30K would pay approximately 80% of their income to cover the cost of COBRA. We all know that. What does that solve? And how does it address all the other “classic American stories” of healthcare deficiency I offered?

It’s not that I’m stupid, Chuck, it’s that I’m honest. You should try it sometime.

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:18 am 39. Rashputin:

Shef Rogers – (1)

YOU just don’t get it. I know of several AIDS cases that are getting very expensive treatment for their terminal illness in spite of the fact that they were uninsured, basically because everyone is afraid to not treat a PC illness like AIDS. The Federal government doesn’t reimberse the total cost of that, so yes, cornors are no doubt cut somewhere else to pay for those that have a political preference. People absolutely do not go without basic treatment as you say, though, I know this because quite a few Migrant workers around here have been treated for major problems without having any insurance, and only a minimum of means to make payment arrangements. The hospitals still make payment arrangements with them, knowing full well that even if they make all the payments it’ll be years before they ever get paid for the treatment they rendered.

I don’t need to turn off anything to or tune in your BS to find out the facts. I’ve had both excellent treatment from the VA and maltreatment from the VA depending on the spending priorities of the party in power at the time. If the VA weren’t’ enough, my wife is Cherokee and if you have never checked out the great 100% government run & funded care is provided to the Native American population than you have no business telling anyone what a great thing it would be were there national DeathCare for everyone.

You and others who believe the pie in the sky BS have never even bother to check out what already exists and see what kind of track record our own government has when running such things. When a Cherokee or Apache kid can’t even get a damn inexpensive antibiotic because this year’s funds have been spent you can’t tell me that the same problem won’t exist on a massive scale once there are hundreds of times as many people to take care of and to take advantage of.

The Democrat fools thought they could hide the fact that they have no intention of fixing Medicare by folding it into a nice new even bigger program. They could then “fix” it by cutting benefits for those on Medicare and justify it by telling everyone that so many more were covered it was a reasonable sacrifice for some to get less treatment. Forget the fact the “uninsured” is a grossly inflated number that counts far more illegal immigrants than legal citizens, and forget the fact the government couldn’t run Medicare, the VA, or any other program without bankrupting it, just have faith in the wonderful weenies who didn’t even read the bill they want to pass and all will be just fine.

You need to go get a look at reality, not those who are against this boondoggle. You’re the one who thinks that the rationing the government would absolutely put in place would be better than the existing system. So, PROVE IT, you SOB. Stop with the theory and sales talk; show me a single thing the Federal Government tinkers with that doesn’t get worse. It’s no use looking for a healthcare example; four fifths of the problems with our current system were and are caused by the Federal government. Furthermore, they won’t even listen to putting tort reform on the table, the one thing that might actually counterbalance the many stupid medical regulations they shoved down the publics’ throats already.

Now, you can continue the BS or you can document something the government runs that works half as well as it does when the private sector addresses the same issue. If you toss out more BS, fine, that’s an admission that you can’t now and never have been able to find your own butt with a strip map attached to the back of your pants.

Have a nice day

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:20 am 40. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Now and Then….

Yes, Chuck, we’ve all heard of COBRA. — Now and Then

….is WORSE than ’stupid’. He/she is a dishonest person. Knowing about COBRA and offering that earlier stupid argument.

Enough of that. I don’t deal with liars and scoundrels. Except to point them out to the general public.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth is out....Now and Then is worse than stupid....they're bolsheviks.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:21 am 41. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Found One….

….of the items Jeff was referring to HERE!

Anyone know of the other one?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you think the situation is bad now....just wait until THEY, i.e., the government, fix it.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:24 am 42. venividivici:

Would you care to explain to me how one pays for COBRA with no job and no income.

Savings.

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:26 am 43. Free Quark:

JHarp;

And yet we have a public plan for our seniors that far outperforms the private sector

Are you referring to Medicare? The public plan that’s going to go bankrupt in a few years?

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:27 am 44. Now and Then:

40 Pelto

When you can’t respond, you refuse to respond . . . let me guess . . . . out of principle. Fine. Let the vanquished retreat. It is their way.

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:32 am 45. jharp:

Chuck,

I don’t blame you for taking the cowards way out and ignoring those who highlight your ignorance and dishonesty.

There is no other place for an ignorant liar to turn.

Anyways, it’s a beautiful day. You losers wallow in your ignorance without me today. I’m going out to play golf.

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:33 am 46. Michael:

The trolls are worried. When no one replies to their idiocy then they have no reason for existance.

The solution to health care. Require competition from the insurance companies. Require states to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

The ruin of America. Government controlled health care.

Aug 24, 2009 - 9:15 am 47. Peter the Bubblehead:

41. Chuck Pelto wrote:
Anyone know of the other one?

Peter writes: This article mentions both;
http://www.pccef.org/articles/art67.htm

Aug 24, 2009 - 9:23 am 48. Dave Hansen:

To all you liberal trolls.

Tell you what, YOU live under Obamacare, but leave the rest of us out of it. NO GOVERNMENT CONTROL! This has been our whole beef with this health care nonsense since it’s inception. I’m happy with what I currently have and I don’t want any government bureaucrat changing that or making our decisions for us or telling us what we do or do not need or can or cannot have! And don’t give me that CR@P Obama said about having a supposed choice, I don’t believe any of it for a second! I’m all for helping those who need insurance or medical treatment who can’t afford it, let’s find a way, but for heaven’s sake, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT!

Aug 24, 2009 - 9:47 am 49. mudpie:

I was in the hospital in May. I received the bill in June. 39 cents shy of $147,250. Medicare
paid a wopping $575.50. Now I know I have only paid into this program for 45 years and continue to pay in today. The bill said “you owe
$146,674.11. My private (supplement) insurance will hopefully cover most of the rest. I can hardly wait for Obama-care, so every one can
share such a wonderful health care experiance.

Aug 24, 2009 - 9:47 am 50. Jacob:

42. Venividiveci, you are overlooking the fact that he probably never saved any money, expecting to get propped up by unemployment/his parents.

The real solution is just to not get sick. I don’t have insurance because the last time I went to any sort of Health Care Professional was at least 5 years ago, so I don’t need it.

Aug 24, 2009 - 10:00 am 51. Mike Sheard:

Thanks for the links Chuck, et. al. This story was orginally in the Eugene, OR Register-Guard but I can’t find it in their archives.

Congress and the President have balanced the budget 4 times since World World II. Why would anyone turn over health care management to this group?

Aug 24, 2009 - 10:18 am 52. Herb:

Regardless of how bad the proposed one payer system would be, we do need to do something as insurance companies now pick and choose who they want to cover. Case in point, my father in law just recently sold his restaurant and now he and his brother (co-manager) can’t find insurance at all. No one wants to take two gentleman over the age of 60.

We shouldn’t throw away our entire healthcare system to help them though….

Aug 24, 2009 - 10:30 am 53. Tailgunner:

‘Politics’?

This is Nazi eugenics!

DENYING lifesaving care for patients who would benefit from it is nothing less than a death sentence.

And denying such treatment in favor of preserving funds for abortion is eugenics worthy of Dr Mengele.

Aug 24, 2009 - 10:37 am 54. venividivici:

50

I would expect something like that sort of answer. I mean, how can we expect people to put aside a little bit of money each week by living below their means in order to avoid becoming a burden on the rest of society? That’s just pure madness.

COBRA’s a good program, but I don’t see how it is my responsibility to make sure someone else can afford it.

Aug 24, 2009 - 11:21 am 55. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Herb, et al.
RE: Indeed

Regardless of how bad the proposed one payer system would be, we do need to do something as insurance companies now pick and choose who they want to cover. — Herb

Not only that, but rating people up based on their existing conditions.

I’m curious as to the result of everyone being charged the same rate. I’d like to see some modeling done on all insurance companies having to accept anyone who applies without exclusions and without rating up for conditions.

RE: Those ‘Silly’ People….

….like Now and Then and jharp and their ilk have been shown such a thought before, but they still hold to the government-run programs. No reasoning will sway them. Why? Because they’re bolsheviks. That’s why. They don’t give a rat’s hienie about people.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Aug 24, 2009 - 11:26 am 56. Dave Hansen:

What we need is not more government control, but a way for individuals and small companies to band together into some sort of CO-OP. This would give them the same buying power, so to speak, as much larger companies do. I once worked for a small (less that 40 people) family owned business. They offered health insurance, but it would have cost me nearly one quarter of my pay check. Allowing these businesses and individuals to band together might reduce this cost. The insurance company’s would deal with the CO-OP, not the individuals or businesses themselves. I’m not an expert on this, but it seems that there should be a better way.

I also believe that those who are capable of working should be required to work. No free rides. I know there might be circumstances, but let there be no excuses. I have to work, so should everyone else who can.

Aug 24, 2009 - 11:28 am 57. Metz:

Chuck, you’re fighting a losing battle against the posters here that believe nobody should ever have to deal with a “negative” life experience. They look at successful people with envy and disgust because they believe it just happened to them and they never sacrificed anything to get there. They want to ignore the business failures, the going without, and all the other sacrifices. They just want to “eye with envy” what successful people have today.

And golly gee whiz, we’re just so gosh darn mean expecting them to go out and do what we did to have it in the first place, earn it.

Aug 24, 2009 - 11:34 am 58. Dee:

Jharp-#31
As my Mother always said,”If everyone is jumping off a cliff, would you.”

Also, in our family would group does not work any longer than 18 months at any job. However, they have had over the last five years, one gallbladder removal, two high risk pregencies, and a couple of auto accidents with injuries. All paid by MediCal.

They also have leather furniture, new cars and a humungous T.V.

So the current system is working for them. And so are you.

Aug 24, 2009 - 12:17 pm 59. theBuckWheat:

Shef, the issue is that when a person is spending their own money, they will make their own rationing decisions based on their own personal priorities. Further, if I don’t like the care I am getting, I am perfectly free to go elsewhere, a choice that citizens of Canada actually have to ask permission to take.

I refuse to place myself at the hands of some self-interested acutary who decides what he will cover and what he will not. When I contract with an insurance company, I know before hand what the contract covers and what it does not. Further, I can ask government to enforce the contract.

When I place myself at the whim of government, there is no “contract”. Coverage is at the whim of politicians and bureaurcrats who can change the rules as they please. If they make a mistake, they probably won’t even lose their jobs.

What deficiencies that exist in private insurance can be addressed far more quickly and at no expense to government than for government to take over the industry.

In the UK, the National Health Service is the largest employer in the country. Of course, all its employees seek more funding. As a result any conservative response to the mess that the HNS has made is how they can run it better than can the liberals, not in how health care could be privately delivered.

Recall that the initial interest in the health care issue was to cover the “47 million” uninsured. But this number is false. Only about 12 million actually don’t have insurance due to no fault of their own. I refuse to insure illegal aliens. Millions of people could afford insurance but choose to not buy a policy.

So, what agenda is in play when, to cover 12 million uninsured, the proposal is put forth with 49 new bureaucracies, to seize control of the entire health care industry? This is the question that the advocates of this plan hope you never ask. They want power over us, and in a way that ensures that power gets its claws in the body politic very firmly so we cannot shake it off. If we lose this battle, we may very well never recover our lives, our liberties or indeed our happiness.

Aug 24, 2009 - 12:21 pm 60. karlinsync:

This is very scary, indeed. The bottom line always- is government stay the hell out of our personal life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not come with any form of government intervention.

Aug 24, 2009 - 12:28 pm 61. Moho:

Countries with Universal Health Care more satisfied with the level of service and quality, and more confident than US.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/OECD-Countries-Universal-Healthcare-Gets-High-Marks.aspx

On availability of quality local healthcare, the median percentage of satisfied respondents among countries with universal health coverage is 79%, 13 percentage points higher than the median percentage among those without universal coverage (66%). For those that have confidence in their national health system, the difference is again 13 points (73% for those with universal coverage, 60% for those without).…In France and Canada, two countries that critics of universal healthcare often cite as having long wait times and high costs, Gallup finds people just as likely to be satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare in their communities as to be confident in their national health system Gallup also found no measurable difference in several European countries, including Belgium, Luxembourg, and Sweden.

Aug 24, 2009 - 12:51 pm 62. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Metz
RE: [OT] Au Contraire!

Chuck, you’re fighting a losing battle against the posters here that believe nobody should ever have to deal with a “negative” life experience. — Metz

I’m not ‘fighting’ them. I’m pointing them out to others for what they are.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth.....it comes out....eventually.....]

Aug 24, 2009 - 12:55 pm 63. Delia:

The Libtards who post here purposely ‘forget’ the skanks who wrote up 0bamacare trash have conveniently exempted themselves. Sorry, but that ain’t no sales pitch.

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:08 pm 64. Old Soldier:

Moho: I don’t care about satisfaction. I care about freedom.

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:15 pm 65. myth buster:

32. We can handle it just fine. A couple years ago a runaway bus crashed and injured 17 students, putting one in critical condition. She spent over a month in the hospital and had to have her leg amputated. The entire community came together and ran a bunch of fundraisers partnering with local businesses to help pay for her therapy. If the father of two college students needs surgery to deal with chronic pain, he need only ask for the money, assuming he is at least somewhat responsible. Americans are plenty charitable enough, as long as you don’t abuse our generosity.

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:16 pm 66. Moho:

Old Soldier: Anything you need to ignore the facts. Hold onto you delusion in the face of evidence.

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:30 pm 67. ic:

61. Moho: Don’t get suckered. Americans like to complain. Leftists always feel left behind by the progressives in Europe, and try to catch up with them regardless of consequences. They have cap-and-trade, we’ll have one. Eventhough on all accounts the Euro’s cap-and-trade is a total disaster. Er, not total, it favors the connected. That’s why the Dems love it.

Rating their Universal Health Care satisfied is useless. They don’t know better. E.g. A well-heeled Canadian MP sneaked into California for cancer treatment. The Canadians have a safety valve south of the border. Their pregnant women come south to deliver their babies when their hospitals are full. Their brain cancer patients come south for CAT scans when they cannot stand the months long wait list. In the latest poll, 90+% of Americans love their healthcare. That doesn’t stop the progressives from trying to junk the system and turn the healthcare into another Clunker pgm which they believe was a great success.

I guess Oregon’s is really “DeathCare”. I hope they pay for the funerals in lieu of paying for the treatments.

Death is always messy. Whether one dies of a lingering disease or in an accident, someone else must pick up the pieces afterwards (literally). The only way to achieve “Death with Dignity” is to plan your own funeral, dig your own grave, lie in your own coffin and bump yourself off. No gun here, too messy. The only thing left to do is for someone, preferably from the State DeathCare to close the lid, and call it another sucess. The Death Tax should pay for the extra care.

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:38 pm 68. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Moho & ‘Evidence’

Anything you need to ignore the facts. Hold onto you delusion in the face of evidence. — Moho

Obviously, Moho has never studied sadistics to the point where he cannot tell the difference between a rigged ’study’ and an honest one.

Personally, whenever I see a study, I prefer to see the raw data too. This, in order to see if someone is playing fast and loose with the data.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Figures don't lie, but liars figure.]

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:55 pm 69. venividivici:

Leftists always feel left behind by the progressives in Europe, and try to catch up with them regardless of consequences.

The inferiority complex vis-a-vis Europe is rather embarrassing. I don’t understand why they just don’t move to Europe and be done with it. Lord knows we don’t need their kind here.

Aug 24, 2009 - 1:57 pm 70. Berlet98:

Abortion and Obamacare

Question: Do any of the various obamacare bills floating around congress specifically state, “The government of the United States of America will fund abortions?”

The short answer is, “Obviously not!”

Obviously, because even abortion-loving, leftist Democrats know that including such language or any other language suggesting government-endorsed payments for terminating the lives of the pre-born in any obamacare package would ignite a firestorm of opposition and doom it to failure.

Failure to pass health reform legislation would also doom Obama to ignominious failure and his legacy to oblivion.

However, as usual, the devil lurks hidden in the details. After all, Democrats somehow, some way must satisfy their liberal followers by making certain the United States government preserves their gory sacrament of abortion.

The quintessentially pro-abortion Obama has said repeatedly that the deadly procedure will not be part of his version of health care and that it’s just one more “myth” that obamacare would incorporate abortion.

He and his minions say a lot of things, including contradicting themselves on the public option, insisting Americans would be free to keep their current medical insurance, swearing that illegals won’t be covered, vowing there will be no rationing, and refusing to pull the plug on grandma.

Unsaid is that after private insurers have been run out of business, there won’t be any other options available and the millions of illegals will all be declared legals. As for grandma, after getting her “end of life counseling,” she’ll be so depressed she’ll pull her own plug.

At Notre Dame last spring, . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Aug 24, 2009 - 2:56 pm 71. Conservative Mom:

If jharp is too poor to pay for insurance, how come he can afford to golf. What crap. He has complained about all these supposed tragedies in his life. I guess Acorn is paying for him round.

I have finally found some statistics about Canadian Health Care. We pay about 10% GDP and the USA about 15%. However the Canadian system covers only 70%, private covers the rest, so simple math makes them even, with our system not as good coverage, but everyone covered for basics (not drugs or dental). There has been very little denial for coverage other than experimental drugs. Very poor get coverage same as USA. When they speak of the USA paying 15% GDP, does it include private and public? People say USA is twice as expensive. I don’t believe this, but no one does real studies that I can compare apples to apples. Anyone have links? (That aren’t biased)

Canadians don’t mind their health insurance, but 1. HATE the waiting 2. Don’t know what they pay 3. Bail to the US or Mexico for private help.

This I know for sure.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:21 pm 72. polkabout:

I noticed that HIV was 11th on the list. WHY???? It is terminal. Wonder how many request for HIV services were responded with a “end your life letter”?

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:43 pm 73. polkabout:

Correction – 15th

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:50 pm 74. Moho:

Rating their Universal Health Care satisfied is useless. They don’t know better.

Great reasoning. And apparently, having endured our horrible universal health care of yesteryear, and comparing it with our commercial, anything for profit health care of today, we’re in a better position to compare. As I said, you guys will do anything to avoid the facts when they’re presented to you. The symbol of your movement should be a coat of arms depicting a person shouting while covering their ears.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:55 pm 75. Moho:

Veni

I don’t understand why they just don’t move to Europe and be done with it. Lord knows we don’t need their kind here.

Excuse me fool, but last time I checked, people who supported your position constituted about 30% of the nation’s people. It would be more appropriate, if not easier, for you idiots to seclude yourself someplace.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:56 pm 76. Moho:

Chuck Pelto:

Obviously, Moho has never studied sadistics to the point where he cannot tell the difference between a rigged ’study’ and an honest one.

he said, and then proved his point by…doing nothing. It must be rigged. It doesn’t say what I want it to.

Personally, whenever I see a study, I prefer to see the raw data too. This, in order to see if someone is playing fast and loose with the data.

Yeah, sure you do. Idiot.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:57 pm 77. Now and Then:

62. Chuck Pelto:
“I’m not ‘fighting’ them. I’m pointing them out to others for what they are.”

Your intellectual and moral superiors.

Aug 24, 2009 - 3:59 pm 78. 888:

Below was a comment made on another PJM article.

#96 – “The healthcare program is badly needed.”

My response to #96 was:

Perhaps you do not know this, but we already have a healthcare program for those who do not have health or dental insurance. They’re called a number of things, but most people know them as free clinics, clinics for the indigent, Medicaid, etc. Of course, those clinics are not actually “free” since the taxpayer pays for their existence, and we also have the subsidized programs (Medicare, etc.) which requires some nominal payment by the user/patient.

When I was in college in the 80’s, I used those free clinics. So did my friends and classmates. I got birth control pills, got annual physical exams, got periodic teeth cleaning and even root canals. And at the most, I may have paid $10 for the visit. If I didn’t have the money at the moment, they would let me pay later. That was in San Jose and San Francisco. My cousin who was a drug addict, alcoholic and on welfare at the time, was seen and admitted at a top hospital in Santa Clara, with no costs to him whatsoever — only to the taxpayers. My brother who’s out of work now, just got approved for food stamps and Medicaid in Arizona. Another one who recently lost his job, is receiving food stamps and also got Medicaid in Nevada.

This great country of ours has always given to the poor, unemployed, disadvantaged, veterans, Native Americans, newly displaced legal immigrants and even the lazy, parasitical, criminal and illegal aliens amongst us. Our healthcare system at the local and state levels are not perfect, but they exist to support those with medical needs. Reform is definitely warranted to fix some aspects of the system that are not efficient, effective or operate with cost savings, but an entire overhaul of what we already have does not make sense and is impractical and unsustainable for our economy through the outyears. Also, our private doctors and HMOs would end up closing shop because they would not be able to compete with a national, socialized one-pay system.

If you are in need of medical care and do not have means of making a payment(s), you should do some thorough research, and find out where you can get your healthcare needs met at the local or state level. If you’re an honorably-discharged veteran, you can go to the nearest VA clinic or medical center, even if the illness is not service-connected. The VA will not turn you away if you were honorably discharged and now you do not have the means to pay for your medical needs (believe me — I used to work for the VA). If you live far from a VA facility and have no way to get there, the nearest VA or Disabled American Veterans (DAV) outreach office, will provide transportation for you. If you drive there yourself (over 50 miles), the VA will reimburse you for the round-trip costs, including payment for meals if the medical appointment lasted a whole day or longer. (I know this because my father who is a 100% combat-related disabled veteran, gets the travel allowances and per diem payments since he has to travel from Arizona to Las Vegas for his appointments.)

Again, healthcare facilities already exist for those in need of them in America –don’t be fooled by Obama, Pelosi, Spector and Reid. We do not need to spend trillions of dollars for a new system when we, the taxpayers, have already been paying for existing programs. Although many agree that these programs are far from perfect, still, they exist and do provide healthcare to the masses. They just need some fine-tuning.

Aug 24, 2009 - 4:35 pm 79. Moho:

888–> I think you believe what you’re writing, and that’s the way you see it, based, apparently on a handful of personal experiences and popular representations. The reality is at odds with your beliefs–I assure you that there are many income levels that do not qualify as poor, that do not receive health assistance. The most common reason for bankruptcy today is health care costs. Costs in the system are so out of control that the entire medical infratsructure of our country is now threatened. You don’t have to believe my point of view. But if you really believe in the position as you say, then you’ll do a little homework and see if the facts back up your assertions.

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:20 pm 80. jharpster:

theBuckWheat:.

“I refuse to place myself at the hands of some self-interested acutary who decides what he will cover and what he will not. When I contract with an insurance company, I know before hand what the contract covers and what it does not. Further, I can ask government to enforce the contract.”

Good one, Buckwheat. Very good.

Always fall back on the government to protect us, right? The guys we can vote in or vote out.

But make sure you put a for profit entity in between us. One that donates millions of dollars to get the guys elected who you want to protect us.

Good God. That’s exactly the system we’re trying to change.

You are an imbecile. Your position is contradictory.

Aug 24, 2009 - 5:46 pm 81. Anonymous:

‘If jharp is too poor to pay for insurance, how come he can afford to golf.’

I wouldn’t be too quick to assume that it’s traditional ‘golf’. Remember, we’re talking about the guy with the teabagging obsession here.

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:07 pm 82. Smoking Frog:

@71 Conservative Mom

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:08 pm 83. Smoking Frog:

@71 Conservative Mom

No, “simple math” does not make the US and Canada even, because the percentage of GDP spent on health care is the percentage of GDP spent on health care, government *or* private.

If you want to look for something that would tend to even them up, you could compare the amounts and kinds of care that are bought in both countries (by the government *or* private parties), and you could also look at the question of whether the dollar amounts would be so far apart if the two per-capita GDPs were the same.

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:14 pm 84. Jerry:

I am so sorry to be critical of the posters here because I agree with those opposed to radically changing a system that needs only tweaking. However,….

there are issues here that are conflated because – Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Socialist – no one is making the distinction between the inequities of the health care system and permission given by the people to change that inequitable system.

In the clearest issue, the rationing of health care that may lead to the death of an individual has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with whether we allow government to make those decisions for us. We would like everything to be neat. If rationing is necessary, then government seems like the correct agency to be permitted to make that decision.

It is not neat at all. Rationing occurs whether we like it or not. However, consciously handing over power to “a board,” “a panel,” “a committee,” or “a government rule book” is an independent decision from rationing health care services. Anyone who does not believe in the independence of these two operating conditions, does not believe in freedom or the agency of the individual.

I for one would rather fight to live or give up on my own rather than feel at the mercies of other “well-meaning” humans. It is simply no one else’s business what I do with my life. If you think otherwise, then perforce you have lost the definitions of murder, death-penalty, man-slaughter, etc. from your vocabulary and world view. You have given up “law” as a moderating influence in human life.

While most people on this blog are unconcerned about Jewish legal issues, a point of Jewish law may aid the American debate on health care reform. The current Orthodox Jewish legal state of affairs – as simply as possible – says that that an active caregiver is not required to offer life-saving measures to a a suffering individual (even if that might prolong his life), but once offered, that same person has no right to remove that very same treatment that he did not have to initiate (which would thereby hasten death of the sufferer by the caregiver’s hand). Period! This legal decision prevents institutionalization of murder.

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:27 pm 85. venividivici:

Excuse me fool, but last time I checked, people who supported your position constituted about 30% of the nation’s people. It would be more appropriate, if not easier, for you idiots to seclude yourself someplace.

I have consistently said, give us the red counties and keep the blue for yourself. We’ll compare notes in 100 years.

Also, in the future, if you care to address me, do so politely or don’t bother, because you will get no response. I wish to God you were sitting right next to me when you wrote that last post. Unfortunately, I don’t get online from the public library.

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:34 pm 86. venividivici:

The most common reason for bankruptcy today is health care costs.

Wrong.

Who wants to bet me that the first comment from the trolls is an ad hominem because this article isn’t from one of their preferred sources? Arguing with these people is like arguing with those old-school Marxists whose entire set of arguments consisted of quoting other Marxists. We need two separate countries. I’ve got the perfect name picked out for theirs: “Soviet Union Junior”.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html

“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.”

Aug 24, 2009 - 6:41 pm 87. Paul of Alexandria:

jharp (31):

The facts are the American health care system is the most expensive in the world. By double. For the same level of care.

You get what you pay for. Frankly, I prefer US medical care over that available anywhere else in the world, and am willing to pay the difference.

Of course I wouldn’t mind if Congress passed tort reform, stopped the free treatment of illegal immigrants, and the other steps which would reduce the overall cost of health care.

Recall also, BTW, that one reason that our medical care is expensive relative to other countries is that we do – and pay for – most of the medical R&D for the planet. Other countries sponge off of the medicines and medical devices that we develop.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:17 pm 88. jharp:

venividivici:

Excuse me fool, but last time I checked, people who supported your position constituted about 30% of the nation’s people. It would be more appropriate, if not easier, for you idiots to seclude yourself someplace.

I have consistently said, give us the red counties and keep the blue for yourself. We’ll compare notes in 100 years.
_________________________________________________

How do you suppose you’ll get along without those blue state welfare dollars?

And hate to break it to ya, Mr. Secessionist, but none of us will be around in 100 years.

You are losing the health care reform battle just like you lost the last two elections.

Did it ever occur to you to think that we just elected in a landslide a black President with the names Hussein Obama who CAMPAIGNED on reforming health care?

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:22 pm 89. Moho:

Veni:
Well, I have to say that the fact that you’re now offering links to back up your arguments is certainly a step in the right direction. But:

1) Roth is confused about the provenance of the study. The lead author was Steffie Woolhandler, not Himmelstein.

2) She is grossly ill-informed about the methodology:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them. They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

Moreover, Roth offers no evidence for her numbers, none at all. The mythological US DOJ study commissioned by Grassley is nowhere to be found, nor does it seem to have a name. I found another reference of it used in a similar article by Health Affairs. Though the article had footnotes, there is no entry for the study. One wonders if it exists at all in the form that its described.

And even more significantly the numbers from the DOJ are simply a crazy way to counter Woolhandler’s numbers. Woolhandler used as her baseline the amount 5,000…

They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income)

But the DOJ study says, and I’m quoting here:

90.1 percent reported medical debts less than $5,000….Among the debtors reporting medical debt, the average medical debt was $4,978 per case.

That’s totally absurd and perhaps a product of the hyper-partisan nature of the DOJ under Bush. Think about this with your pointy little head…if 90.1% reported medical debts less than 5,000 and the average medical debt was 4,978 dollars, then its quite possible that any number up to and including 90.1% had debts close to 5,000 dollars. I’d say its quite obvious that the DOJ study is useless for actually analyzing the study by Woolhandler.

But keep trying:

Here’s the DOJ Study, you’ll find its all of one page long and shows no methodology. Sucker.

http://abiworld.net/bankbill/eoustdata.pdf

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:27 pm 90. Paul of Alexandria:

Dave Hansen (56):

What we need is not more government control, but a way for individuals and small companies to band together into some sort of CO-OP.

No, what we need to do is to decouple health insurance from employment so that the “group” consists of all customers of the insurance company, just as with auto, life, house, and extended-care insurance. Most of the “pre-existing condition” problems come from people that are forced to leave their insurance policy because they leave their employer.

In addition to the aforementioned tort reform, we also need to encourage health-savings accounts. Long-term ones that don’t reset each year. If I reasonably suspect that I’ll need major surgery in 5 years – say a new knee – I should be able to save up for it easily.

It would also help if people realized that health-insurance is just that: insurance. You don’t ask your auto insurer to pay for oil changes and new tires, your home insurance doesn’t pay for a new roof (unless the old one was taken off by a storm or such), why should health insurance pay for routine care? We could significantly drop costs by letting health insurance do what it’s supposed to do and not act as a general health fund.

BTW, this is not to say that the poor and impoverished cannot be covered by some sort of public-health funding. But this should be just that: a public wellfare issue, not a “health coverage” issue.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:29 pm 91. James:

SHEF: No! You don’t get it! I work my arse off to pay a high medical insurance premium for my family, and we have GREAT coverage. I CHOOSE TO WORK MY ARSE OFF FOR GREAT COVERAGE! That’s MY priority! I will never allow some government officials tell me that I have to get second-rate care, as every other deadbeat out there, especially when I’m willing to work 60 hours a week for excellent coverage. Didn’t like your free “county” medical treatment?…THEN CHOOSE TO WORK YOUR BUNS OFF LIKE ME FOR SOMETHING BETTER!!!!!!

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:34 pm 92. CBDenver:

Those who point out the inadequacies of our current healthcare system are missing the point — there is no reason for the government to take over healthcare for the whole nation in order to solve those problems.

First, health insurance is tied to employment due to the fact that employers get a tax break when they pay for your health insurance. If you bought that insurance yourself, you would not get that tax break. Level the playing field by allowing individuals to have the same tax advantages that employers do.

Second, it makes no sense for people to expect that all healthcare should be paid for by insurance. You don’t expect your automobile tune-ups or other routine maintenance to be paid for by insurance. So why should every routine doctor visit? Allow people to purchase affordable catastrophic health insurance policies that cover major illnesses and pay for the routine healthcare on their own.

Aug 24, 2009 - 7:50 pm 93. Carolyn:

Im kind of late getting here. For those who say that we need govment health “care”, I say move to Canada. You realize that in some places, there is a weekly lottery to see who can go to the doctor that week? You do realize that people with such illnesses as cancer have to wait so long to see an oncologist that by the time they can, their cancer which was stage 1 is now terminal? You do realize that doctors are quitting their practices there and moving to the States? I could go on and on. I was born and raised there so I know some of what I speak.
Now, yes, it’s hard when someone doesn’t have health coverage- (My family doesn’t as my husband lost his job in January. Since he is in the construction work, it’s not looking too promising. HOWEVER please note: WE DO NOT WANT OTHERS TO HAVE TO PAY FOR US!!!)
When someone doesn’t have health insurance, doesn’t mean they can not get care. If that were true- how about all the illegals coming in to have their “anchor babies”?! You can bet they aren’t covered by insurance, yet they can still get into a hospital to have those babies.
Hopefully my family and others like us will get back on their feet (no help from obami!) and until then, we will have to pay as we can. Hospitals do allow payment plans. I had my son and paid in installments until we were paid off.

One last thought. Government has NO business mandating health care. It is uncostitutional for one thing. Yes, I do read America’s founding documents and agree with and will defend them 100 percent!

What would really drive health cost down, which I don’t hear many talking about is tort reform. get the lawyers out of the slip and fall business and we’re almost there to affordability. TOo bad most libs are lawyers though. We’ll never see that happen.

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:10 pm 94. jharp:

. venividivici:

The most common reason for bankruptcy today is health care costs.

Wrong.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html
___________________________________________________

I actually took the time to read your link and cannot believe, literally cannot believe you would take it seriously.

Do you have even the slightest clue of what a statistical analysis consists of?

Any clue at all? Do you really take an article with no scientific data to back it up seriously?

I strongly suggest that you stick to the teabagging. At the least it’s something you can understand along with the other 20%ers who identify themselves as republicans.

You are a fool.

Aug 24, 2009 - 8:15 pm 95. Fat Man:

Jeff Emanuel: I take it you are not related to Rham, Zeke, and Ari.

Aug 24, 2009 - 10:06 pm 96. Jeff Weimer:

94. jharp:

Debate assumes that the other person is someone who can be convinced, who will answer reasoned argument with a reasoned argument of their own, and even change their mind when a valid argument prompts it.

You are not that kind of person.

You are a small and bitter person whose only avenue of debate is to debase those with which you disagree. You probably think you’re “winning” when you insult, when you ask if they “have a clue”, when you call them a “fool”. Yet you NEVER substantiate anything – you only ridicule. Where is YOUR factual, scientific reference refuting venividivici’s article? Where is your substantive argument for ANYTHING? Do you even know what you are talking about?

I didn’t think so.

Lifting yourself up is hard, I know. Tearing other people down is so much easier and it takes a lot less effort – and it looks the same from your viewpoint. Does it make you feel better?

You mentioned earlier today that you were going golfing. It certainly didn’t do anything for your disposition. Did you play alone? Because I can’t imagine you could find one, two, or three people who would be willing to put up with you for 9 or 18 holes.

Aug 24, 2009 - 10:12 pm 97. Anonymous:

Without the public option, rationing is worse. To call the situation in Oregon as nightmare is to misunderstand the nature and extent of the issues with our health care system. Denial of care is much more common and insidious when practiced for profit. I’d take Oregon’s system over a purely private system any day.

Peace.

DS

Aug 25, 2009 - 3:41 am 98. venividivici:

While not a huge issue, actually, if you go to the press release from the AJM, they list Himmelstein as one of the authors. It appears they list the authors in alphabetical order, so it’s doubtful that his name being first is meaningful.

http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJMMedicalBankruptcyJun09FINAL2.pdf

The article is “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study” by David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Deborah Thorne, Ph.D., Elizabeth Warren, J.D., and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. It appears in The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 122, Issue 8 (August 2009) published by Elsevier.

I’d say its quite obvious that the DOJ study is useless for actually analyzing the study by Woolhandler.

Yes, I had no doubt that you would say that. Interesting that all you’ve got to back it up is the claim that the DOJ was “hyperpartisan” and therefore it’s study is flawed. Way to confirm your status as a political hack imitating an objective analyst.

Also, since I’ve decided not to waste any more time on you, go here

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/elizabeth_warren_and_the_terri.php

and here

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/why_warrens_new_bankruptcy_stu.php

for more detailed takedowns.

jharp,

94

Still trying to rhetorically intimidate people, I see. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

I strongly suggest that you stick to the teabagging.

None of the things I would strongly suggest to you would make it past the PJM filter, so I’m not going to bother. Just let your imagination run wild, then double it. That’s what I’d strongly suggest to you.

Aug 25, 2009 - 5:28 am 99. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: ‘Progressive’ Thought

I went to a public forum discussion of the proposed health care ‘deform’ last night. I was in the audience.

During the discussion, I got into a side discussion with a young woman who is an obvious ‘progressive’.

On one of the questions about the proposed legislation regarding Advance Life Care Consulting, I asked her to read the bill for herself, as the bill said after 65 it was MANDATORY to see a government bureaucrat about one health.

Her reply was, “I don’t care.”

There you have ‘progressive’ thought in a nutshell. And it probably belongs there too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Any philosophy that can be described in a nutshell probably belongs in one.]

Aug 25, 2009 - 5:43 am 100. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Ignorance Is Less Than ‘Bliss’

Without the public option, rationing is worse. — Anonymous @ 97

Anonymous has OBVIOUSLY never dealt with a government bureaucrat. Especially one that has a budget to keep to.

This character should look at what’s going on in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. And let’s let HIM decide who gets to have the limited number of surgeries to be performed, after the government has reduced said number by 6000, because they don’t have the money to pay the surgeons.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Nailed a local oncologist who was on the panel last night with THAT one, after he trotted out how Canada had such a WONDERFUL healthcare system…..

….he was non-plussed by my report…..

Aug 25, 2009 - 5:50 am 101. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: I Am REALLY….

…get sick and tired of all the lies I’m hearing from my Congressional Delegation.

Last night at the public forum, I caught one Senator’s rep and my House of Rep’s rep in outright lies and called them out in public for their malfeasance.

I counsel everyone here who has such a situation to boldly tell the truth to their face. Especially if it’s in a public venue so that others will know what sort of egregious liars we have in Congress.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Aug 25, 2009 - 5:53 am 102. woreoutolddude:

w/m 55 started paying into SS at the tender age of 12 carried BC/BS from 14 til 19 went on employer plans till 42 then totally and permanently disabled. Am now on Govt. ponzi scheme called medicare, this coming year; the govt. has announced; no SS increase due to cost of living, but medicare premium is going to increase. They will probably make up this year for the fact that there was no increase last year. What troubles me the most is that I have read where the govt. itself says that medicare will be insolvent in 9 years. So any of you holding medicare up as a standard get your facts right. Medicare is broke SS is broke the postal service has never ran in the black yet you think the boys in D.C. can run everything in our lives. God willing I could go back to work tomorrow and quit drawing from these ponzi schemes. The next step is for me to be removed from the rolls because I am no longer productive (paying taxes to float these schemes). In obamacare euthanasia is the way to get the costs down. What me worry?

Aug 25, 2009 - 5:55 am 103. Anonymous:

‘I strongly suggest that you stick to the teabagging.

None of the things I would strongly suggest to you would make it past the PJM filter, so I’m not going to bother. Just let your imagination run wild, then double it. That’s what I’d strongly suggest to you.’

jharp knows that socialized medicine is dead in the water. He’s one of the crew getting all wee weed up that Obama was talking about. You can always tell when jharp gets wee weed up. His middle school thinking process becomes agitated and he starts rolling with the teabagging term.

Teabagging seems to always be on jharps mind. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Live and let live, don’t ask, don’t tell, is my position. I’m just saying.

Aug 25, 2009 - 7:21 am 104. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Anonymous
RE: jharp’s ‘Focus’

Teabagging seems to always be on jharps mind. — Anonymous

There’s something of an ‘indicator’ in jharp’s focus on homosexual activities.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I can imagine WHY homosexuals are in support of this ‘healthcare’ program. But, what they fail to realize is that less a cure for AIDS, they’re likely to be amongst those deemed ‘uneconomically repairable’ under the Advance Life Care aspects of HR 3200.

After all, the bill reads….

An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program. — HR 3200 @ Page 428

Aug 25, 2009 - 7:34 am 105. Moho:

Veni. I didn’t say Himmelstein wasn’t an author, you dope. I said Woolhandler was the lead author, not Himmelstein. That was the first thing that gave away your article as bs.

Aug 25, 2009 - 7:57 am 106. Moho:

Yes, I had no doubt that you would say that. Interesting that all you’ve got to back it up is the claim that the DOJ was “hyperpartisan” and therefore it’s study is flawed. Way to confirm your status as a political hack imitating an objective analyst.

I’m not imitating anything. Even someone as stupid as you are intent on proving you are would have noticed that the DOJ study is two pages long and self-contradictory. Waste no more time–>translation, Veni can’t prove his point, retreats in shame.

Aug 25, 2009 - 7:59 am 107. Michael:

Don’t bother with the trolls. As is apparent from Oregon, from the recent Canadian admission of health care implosion one would think they might put some thought into this debate. As can be seen that isn’t the case. It’s the government as savior of everything for them or nothing at all. Why they think people in government will perform better than people not in government is unsupportable but opaque to them. It appears to be a form of insanity.

Aug 25, 2009 - 8:41 am 108. robert17:

Wow, lots of commentary, even some rational thought. Could the health care of this country be improved? It is every day. More insight, research, practice, it all leads to better health care. Could the system of who pays vs. who doesn’t be improved? Sure. This is not something the government can be any good at whatsoever. I doubt it could be improved privately either. People are responsible, or they aren’t. People ultimately do what they want to do. If they choose to work, they work. Unemployment? Sure, it happens sometimes unexpectedly. Happened to me on a couple of occasions. Did medical needs stop then? No. But I figured out how to make ends meet. Not rich, not even close. Some people work, some leech, some steal (which is an extreme form of leeching). Some people get ill, others don’t. Some people work for companies that provide some health insurance options, some don’t. Some people with options choose to spend their income on health insurance, some choose to spend it on golf or make-up, shiny toys or travel. Having worked since the 60’s in various jobs, eventually staying within an industry for quite some time, learning the ropes, the players, the life, I’ve learned that a) the government isn’t very good at running much of anything, b) although most people mean well, they have preconceived notions that they hold dearly (this is not meant to demean faith nor patriotism, not to reinforce stereotypes, it just IS), c) most people’s world view is formed at a very early age and it takes some major event in life to change it even a little, and d) there is no such thing as a free lunch (Barry Commoner), someone always pays.

Most city people have lost an understanding about economics and life that has been around pretty much forever. Mankind did not invent supply and demand. Maybe we put it into noun/verb/adjective form, but we did not invent it. Lots of rain = lots of plants, fruits, veggies, therefore lots of fodder for the critters, who are fodder for other critters. Little rain means some critters starve because there aren’t enough plants, etc. Farmers, husbanders, hunters, fishers, all understand these things. The disconnect comes with city people, and I mean born, raised, hardly ever leave the air conditioning type of city dwellers, people who rarely stray from the interstate during vacation city dwellers, somehow believe that their understanding fits the rest of the world. These people tend to become politicians. Even the smaller towns produce politicians, but they tend more towards conservatism rather than liberalism than their big city brethren.

It is my experience that most people that are conservative have conserved, that they know that supply is not endless and that they must squirrel away some fodder (food, money, whatever) for the bad times. Instant gratification is put on hold. A family member or friend may need help, so having prepared at whatever level for the unexpected is quite gratifying in the long run. No reliance on government. Embarrassing to look for handouts even if previously you provided them to those in need.

Money is a tool. Invented by the tool-making Homo Sapien. It certainly makes the exchange of goods and services more convenient. Since the government prints it I really don’t think they appreciate it as much as those who use it, how much it implies. They print it, distribute it, and ask for a lot of it back from those who use it. And re-distribute it. Kind of a weird deal in that money and law is all they produce. Most of the services that the government provides are services that are reproduced better and more efficiently in the private sector. Not talking about National Defense here. Someone has to coordinate keeping the missles out of the stratosphere. And it mostly works out o.k. But hasn’t the government only re-produced what the private sector is already doing, somehow thinking they can do it better? Newest examples: Cash for Clunkers? Trade-ins are already available. If the clunker is worth much it’s generally sold to someone who either fixes it for resale or is driven till the wheels fall off by someone who’s needs it meets. Recycled later. Government Healthcare? I haven’t heard in my lifetime of a huge upswelling of the masses, marching in the streets ala the Civil Rights Movement, to lead this charge. Not that it may not happen, but it does seem there are more folks out in mass saying no to Government Healthcare than the other way round. Sure it takes a leader to accomplish a paradigm shift, someone to organize the masses such as Dr. ML King did for the Civil Rights Movement. But is Barry O the champion that the Healthcare Movement has required? No. Just politics.

Any true leader finds a wrong to right, a charge to lead. It could be simple, less dog poop in the local park that the kids play in. Or complex such as Healthcare. But the current delivery of healthcare isn’t wrong, nor really broken. It’s not really 100% efficient nor without mistakes. But it’s not something that needs a complete do-over. Why not find a better cause Barry? As a leader of a very powerful nation, why not focus on something that has more positive net effect, morale lifting, unifying of the masses, say maybe jobs? Real, permananent, meaningful jobs. No, not government jobs, more beaurocratic work. How about oil drilling in the Arctic tundra jobs. Now available without all the polluting side effects (yes, we learned how to accomplish this in the last 75 years). Or create jobs by handing out a few tax breaks to start-up companies (or old timers) so that they can expand the R&D into more smokestack emission/prevention technology, something we can use at home and export as well. Perhaps jobs in the way of canceling the H1B visa deal, permitting American IT workers to get back into the workplace, displacing the foreign nationals who displaced the Americans at cheaper wages in the first place. Wow, side effect here; the foreign nationals go home with a better understanding of Americans, maybe chatting with more of their homeboys, spreading the knowledge around a bit.

Another side effect here. More jobs = more people can afford healthcare. Will everyone? Never. The poor will always be among us. It’s our hearts that will lead us charitably to help meet their needs. Individually. Not by decree, mandate or law. Our own hearts. Seems your tax return, Barry, listed no charitable contributions. Where’s your heart Barry? “You speak of your faith, but I show mine by deeds.” That’s leadership.

Assembling a union hall’s members to outflank some protesters of your will is not leadership. Scaring old folks by rationing their end-of-life needs while looking at the statistics of the Social Security payout ledger that’s about to boomer out of control is not leadership. Financing an oil rig off the coast of Brazil at the request of a campaign donor for his benefit while not opening up oil production on or off the coast of America is not leadership. Allowing our troops to remain in harms way, as their commander in chief, without providing all the troops, equipment, and intelligence they need to get the job done is not leadership.

Oh, well, enough of my rambling. I’ve learned a lot over the years. A,B,C & D don’t really cover it all I’m sure. But it’s a start

Aug 25, 2009 - 8:42 am 109. Anonymous:

‘Veni. I didn’t say Himmelstein wasn’t an author, you dope. I said Woolhandler was the lead author, not Himmelstein.’

I’d say moho is the dope. Venividivici did not say Woolhandler wasn’t the lead author. He used the first author, listed alphabetically has he fruitlessly pointed out to moho, for attribution.

Nor does this wee weed up individual moho address the analysis in:

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/elizabeth_warren_and_the_terri.php

and

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/why_warrens_new_bankruptcy_stu.php

Which I posit indicates that it is the wee weed up moho who has retreated in shame. Total bankruptcies during the period that Warren uses have decreased overall. Which would make one suspect that it is not the pressing crisis that the wee weed up would suggest.

Now I do realize, just to keep the wee weed up on track, that McArdle’s articles don’t directly refute the Warren’s relative proportion of reduced bankruptcies showing medical expenses listed as debts. But McArdle also makes the point that focusing on medical expenses and claiming that they are the prime reason for a bankruptcy where the whole financial picture for the filer has deteriorated is disingenuous at best, and a partisan play to manipulate journalistic response to convince the wee weed up crowd at worst. The moho/jharp crowd.

Aug 25, 2009 - 8:45 am 110. Moho:

Michael, we all know why you call us trolls. Because we present information that refutes your belief systems, and it is difficult for you to come to terms with that. For you:

Countries with Universal Health Care more satisfied with the level of service and quality, and more confident than US.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/OECD-Countries-Universal-Healthcare-Gets-High-Marks.aspx

On availability of quality local healthcare, the median percentage of satisfied respondents among countries with universal health coverage is 79%, 13 percentage points higher than the median percentage among those without universal coverage (66%). For those that have confidence in their national health system, the difference is again 13 points (73% for those with universal coverage, 60% for those without).…In France and Canada, two countries that critics of universal healthcare often cite as having long wait times and high costs, Gallup finds people just as likely to be satisfied with the availability of quality healthcare in their communities as to be confident in their national health system Gallup also found no measurable difference in several European countries, including Belgium, Luxembourg, and Sweden.

Aug 25, 2009 - 8:46 am 111. Delia:

0bamacare = Americans need to be taken down a notch. The answer? Equally sh*tty medical treatment for everyone. Voila. Even Steven.

Aug 25, 2009 - 8:54 am 112. Anonymous:

‘Countries with Universal Health Care more satisfied with the level of service and quality, and more confident than US.’

The Gallup poll doesn’t mean this at all. What it says is that on the availability of quality local healthcare, the median percentage of satisfied respondents among countries with universal health coverage is 79%, 13 percentage points higher than the median percentage among those without universal coverage (66%).

66% is the average of countries without universal coverage, not the US specifically. In the same poll 81% of US respondents are satisfied with the availability of quality local health care. Which is higher than the 79% average among countries with universal health care systems.

So, without any universal health care system, the US is happier with local health care options than the median for countries with universal health care systems. Among countries without universal health care only Switzerland is more satisfied with local health care options than the US.

Aug 25, 2009 - 9:14 am 113. Michael:

I call you trolls because you come in and post more than anyone else and ALWAYS defame conservatives who post their thoughts and evidence. You ALWAYS redirect discussions when you don’t like what is being said by conservatives. You tout your supporting points as all knowing and indisputable and all conservative supporting documentation as evil lies. You don’t discuss, you declaim.

Aug 25, 2009 - 9:36 am 114. venividivici:

I’m not imitating anything. Even someone as stupid as you are intent on proving you are would have noticed that the DOJ study is two pages long and self-contradictory. Waste no more time–>translation, Veni can’t prove his point, retreats in shame.

You call me “stupid” and you can’t tell the difference between an Executive Summary and the entire DOJ report? Clearly, that was a summary sent to a Senator who just wanted the bottom line numbers.

Yeah, I’m retreating in shame. If faux-certainty was a product, you’d be fined as a monopolist. You’re like the guy at the bar who gets his butt stomped and tells his friends the next day “You should see the other guy”. You’re a waste of time, space, carbon, etc.

Aug 25, 2009 - 9:50 am 115. Michael:

The same DOJ that dropped the case on the 2 Black Panther members that stood with clubs in front of a voting location?

Aug 25, 2009 - 12:48 pm 116. Moho:

Veni–> Well, that’s what I was calling you stupid about last time. Now, I’m calling you stupid for fulminating about how that was the executive summary, but not providing any link to the report. You’re obviously too dumb to retreat in shame.

Aug 25, 2009 - 12:49 pm 117. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Moho Self-Description

….I’m calling you stupid for fulminating about how that was the executive summary…. — Moho

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Rebuke a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. -- Proverbs]

Aug 25, 2009 - 1:36 pm 118. Moho:

Nice try anonymous. But there is no statistical difference between 79% and 81%. The problem with your argument is that you have all jumped on to a bandwagon that portrays a genocidal nightmare ensuing from anything approaching a national health care regime. But even taking your mendacious reasoning seriously–which is difficult, considering that the UK’s satisfaction rate is 88% [lol]–other countries have proven that universal health care is at the very least pleasant to have.

Aug 25, 2009 - 2:02 pm 119. Moho:

The funny part, Chuck, is how you think that makes any sense.

Aug 25, 2009 - 2:03 pm 120. Mike Sheard:

108. robert17:

Excellent post, thanks.

Public schools are inferior. Roads and bridges falling apart. Spending $1.68 for each $1.00 they receive. Don’t turn over anything, certainly not health care, to an entity that can’t balance a budget.

Aug 25, 2009 - 2:41 pm 121. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh, Heh….

The funny part, Chuck, is how you think that makes any sense. — Moho

….funny. Isn’t it.

That it made enough ’sense’ for ’stupid’ to get it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.]

Aug 25, 2009 - 2:47 pm 122. venividivici:

Veni–> Well, that’s what I was calling you stupid about last time. Now, I’m calling you stupid for fulminating about how that was the executive summary, but not providing any link to the report. You’re obviously too dumb to retreat in shame.

I wish I only had one reason at a time to call you stupid. I suffer from a surfeit of choices in that regard.

I would be pretty dumb to retreat in shame unnecessarily, so I won’t. As I said, you are a waste of, well, everything. Not to mention the money your mommy is spending on your internet connection so you can post your collectivist rantings. Hopefully, now that the recession is starting to cut companies’ workforces to the bone, you’ll soon be replaced by a higher quality troll.

More debunking of your “leading cause of bankruptcy” claptrap.

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/new-entry-for-worst-study-of-the-year-award/

Aug 25, 2009 - 3:02 pm 123. Moho:

wish I only had one reason at a time to call you stupid. I suffer from a surfeit of choices in that regard.

And apparently unable to articulate any of them in regard to my critique; telling. You may fool the buffoons around here, but we both know that you know very little about this issue or any other. Now, I followed that link, and I stopped reading any further when it said this:

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic has done a very thorough debunking of this study

You already posted the McArdle piece, so this is not a further debunking. This is merely a loop; from the RealClear piece to a DOJ report that resists reproduction, to McArdle, with each person writing about the previous two, another “nail” in your pea brain. Its easy to see how easily you get spun around.

McCardle doesn’t even challenge the findings of Woolhandler’s study; she mereley seeks to prove that a decrease overall in bankruptcies makes the increase in medical bankruptcies moot. She does this even after acknowledging that changes in bankruptcy law, undertaken after heavy lobbying from credit card companies, make it much more difficult to file bankruptcy. She relegates that as a myth, without challenging the fact, and indeed, while still resting her entire argument on what must now be considered to be a causal relationship between fewer bankruptcies and a law making bankruptcy harder to file. The fact that there are fewer bankruptcies, in that context, only means that much more data is lost to such studies, not that bankruptcy is less relevant. In fact, such a fact demands that further study be conducted outside of the confines of bankruptcy and to actual debt per household using some other indicator of debt.

Additionally, I challenged you to produce the DOJ report, upon which your entire argument rests, and you are unable to even acknowledge the challenge. Idiot, doesn’t do it justice, because it can’t factor in the utter cowardice that you demonstrate in your rebuttals.

Aug 25, 2009 - 4:42 pm 124. Delia:

With 0bama’care’ we’ll all be goin’ postal.

Aug 25, 2009 - 6:37 pm 125. venividivici:

And apparently unable to articulate any of them in regard to my critique; telling.

You’re stupid for believing the 50% number in the first place. You’re stupid for believing that any study based on self-reported numbers is useful in determining the overall direction health-care policy should take. You’re stupid for thinking that the DOJ, which is staffed primarily by life-long bureaucrats, would produce a bogus report on the causes of bankruptcy. You’re stupid for thinking that the lifelong ambition of the study’s co-authors to move the US to a single-payer health-care financing model doesn’t influence their conclusions. You’re stupid for believing that even if the number was 50% that would justify the complete overhaul to the health care financing system that ObamaCare envisions. You’re stupid for believing that ObamaCare and the resulting dead-weight loss from increased levels of taxation would not have a greater overall net drag on the economy than medical bankruptcies do today. You’re stupid for thinking that the national experience with ObamaCare would be very different from the disaster that is state-run health care in MA.

Shall I go on, douchebag?

More debunking:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/w74

Aug 25, 2009 - 6:38 pm 126. Lock-n-Key:

The liberals pile up their steaming plethora of stinking failures as if they are shining trophies.

A true mark of madness.

Sad really.

Aug 25, 2009 - 6:51 pm 127. venividivici:

BTW, I know that last debunking was not of the most recent iteration of Himmelstein’s BS. It’s meant more as a general debunking of whatever puke flows out of Himmelstein’s mouth.

Aug 25, 2009 - 6:53 pm 128. venividivici:

McCardle doesn’t even challenge the findings of Woolhandler’s study;

Actually, there is a stream of commentary about the methodological flaws in the study throughout McCardle’s comments and follow-up posts. If I thought you were capable of being educated, I’d point them out to you. BTW, are you banging that Woolhandler chick or something? She’s clearly the junior grunt on that study, relative to Himmelstein and Warren, yet you treat her like she’s the queen bee.

Aug 25, 2009 - 6:59 pm 129. venividivici:

Now, I followed that link, and I stopped reading any further when it said this:

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic has done a very thorough debunking of this study

You already posted the McArdle piece, so this is not a further debunking. This is merely a loop; from the RealClear piece to a DOJ report that resists reproduction, to McArdle, with each person writing about the previous two, another “nail” in your pea brain. Its easy to see how easily you get spun around.

This is one of my favorite types of leftist intellectual head-in-the-sand-ism. The “I didn’t read any further than…”, as if your ignorance of the facts somehow acted as a talisman against them.

If you had read further, numbskull, you’d have seen that the author of that blurb actually had this to say:

“The study has a couple of other implications which Ms. McArdle didn’t note. First, it reports that: “at illness onset, 77.9% were insured: 60.3% had private insurance as their primary coverage; 10.2% had Medicare; 5.4% had Medicaid; and 2% had Veterans’ Affairs/military coverage….. By the time of the bankruptcy, the proportion of patients with private coverage had fallen to 54.1%, while the percentage with Medicare and Medicaid had increased to 16.4% and 9.9%, respectively.”

You do the math: the proportion of “medically uninsured” with insurance (private or public) increased from 77.9% to 80.4%, over 2 points, between “onset of illness” and “time of bankruptcy,” and most of the increase was moving from private to public coverage. The move to Medicaid I understand: get sick, lose your job, go on Medicaid, and declare bankruptcy. But the huge move to Medicare is harder to understand, unless a significant number of the medically bankrupt were 64 years old at the “onset of illness.” That may be the case: the median age of the medically bankrupt was 45, whereas the median age of the U.S. population is 37.

So, what we likely observe here is the classic story of people failing to adequately save for retirement (discussed in today’s Wall Street Journal by Janice Nittoli, and, of course the subject of another NCPA blog).”

Aug 25, 2009 - 7:41 pm 130. Moho:

Veni. You haven’t pointed to a single flaw in the study. You haven’t proven that the DOJ study debunks it, and you haven’t proven that I said that “Obamacare” as you put it, should be based strictly on this issue. You’ve had every opportunity to produce the DOJ study, and you can’t–just dumb one liners, like–”If I thought you were capable of being educated”. Shorthand for “I don’t know what I’m talking about”.

As I said, that kind of bs might work for the little minds that you’re used to palling around with, but it won’t get you anywhere with me, and is pretty weak tea considering the amount of evidence I provided you. You haven’t seen the study yourself, that’s obvious. You haven’t seen the DOJ study, another obvious fact. And its embarrassingly obvious that you haven’t even read any of the articles that you’ve linked to.

Lastly, Woolhandler is the senior author of the study, something you’d know if you spent any time actually looking into it yourself.

“I am senior author on two studies on medical bankruptcy, the most recent of which appears in the
August 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine.”

http://judiciary.house.gov/judiciary/hearings/pdf/Woolhandler090728.pdf

The fact that you would broadcast both your complete unfamiliarity with the study and the extreme bias shown by the authors of the articles you’ve linked to [who can't admit that its not their favorite boogeyman who authored the study], prove without a shadow of a doubt that you’re one stupid mo fo.

Finally here is some concrete information on the methodology of the study. This is probably the first of it you see. You can ignore it as you have in the past, or you can man up and use your own apparently superior brain to come up with your own answers about why its methodology is flawed:

To help other researchers who might choose to use different definitions, we have supplied a detailed analysis of debtors who:
• Specifically identified medical problem of the debtor or spouse (32.1%) or another family
member (10.8%) as a reason for filing bankruptcy.
• Specifically said medical bills were a reason for bankruptcy. (29.0%)
• Lost two or more weeks of wages because of lost time from work to deal with a medical
problem for themselves or a family member. (40.3%)
• Mortgaged their homes to pay medical bills. (5.7%)
• Spent more than $5000 or 10% of annual household income in out-of-pocket medical
bills (34.7%)
• Total, one or more of the above criteria: 62.1%
The vast majority (92%) of bankruptcies that we classified as medical had medical bill problems as
indicated by: listing medical bills as a specific reason for their bankruptcy, or having medical bills of
bills $5000 or 10% of household income, or that forced them to mortgage their home. The remaining
8% whose bankruptcy was classified as “medical” indicated that a medical problem or income loss due
to illness was a cause of bankruptcy.

Aug 25, 2009 - 10:06 pm 131. Paul -Indiana:

107. Michael: It’s about control, not about healthcare.

Aug 26, 2009 - 5:20 am 132. Free Quark:

Moho;

considering that the UK’s satisfaction rate is 88% [lol]–other countries have proven that universal health care is at the very least pleasant to have.

I have family in Europe. My relatives all have private health insurance for the times when they don’t want to wait for treatment. Most of these universal systems are hybrids of private and public, the private sector picking up where the public sector fails and by the purest definition, does not work either.

Aug 26, 2009 - 9:50 am 133. Free Quark:

CORRECTION …

Moho;

considering that the UK’s satisfaction rate is 88% [lol]–other countries have proven that universal health care is at the very least pleasant to have.

I have family in Europe. My relatives all have private health insurance for the times when they don’t want to wait for treatment. Most of these universal systems are hybrids of private and public, the private sector picking up where the public sector fails and vice versa.

By the purest definition of the term, universal healthcare does not work either.

Aug 26, 2009 - 9:52 am 134. Anonymous:

@121. Chuck Pelto:

Chuck(le)
[Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.]

A lesson learned from experience, no doubt.

Peace.

DS

Aug 26, 2009 - 11:08 am 135. Chuck Pelto:

TO: DavidS
RE: Yes…..

[Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.]

A lesson learned from experience, no doubt. — DavidS

….indeed.

Watching what happens to the ’stupid’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A wise man learns from watching the mistakes of others.]

Aug 26, 2009 - 11:29 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: