Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a masterstroke hidden inside the Affordable Care Act that will ensure not only the rapid move to a single-payer system, but also the full government takeover of the medical industry.
Articles: ObamaCare's Looming Land Mine
The percentage of personal bankruptcies linked to medical bills or illness changed little, and the absolute number actually increased in Massachusetts after the implementation of its landmark 2006 law requiring people to buy health insurance, a Harvard study says.
The new study, which appears in today’s American Journal of Medicine, found that between early 2007 and mid-2009, the share of all Massachusetts bankruptcies with a medical cause went from 59.3 percent to 52.9 percent, a non-significant decrease of 6.4 percentage points. Because there was a sharp rise in total bankruptcies during that period, the actual number of medical bankruptcy filings in the state rose from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.
The findings have national implications because the Obama administration’s health law is largely patterned after the Massachusetts plan, including its individual mandate. One of the administration’s arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.
To explain why medical bankruptcies persist in Massachusetts, the authors of the new study write: “Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts – as in other states – afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage – co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services – often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts’ reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services.”
There is a masterstroke hidden inside the Affordable Care Act that will ensure not only the rapid move to a single-payer system, but also the full government takeover of the medical industry.
Articles: ObamaCare's Looming Land Mine
The article ignores the fact that medical bankruptcies have been a problem for a long time, and does not study whether medical bankruptcies will rise or fall under ObamaCare.
Massachusetts if the father of ObamaCare. But in Massachusetts, the Bronze Plan is even worse than the one for ObamaCare. The government's cost share is smaller there.
So let's do a more objective examination than the highly biased American Thinker:
The percentage of personal bankruptcies linked to medical bills or illness changed little, and the absolute number actually increased in Massachusetts after the implementation of its landmark 2006 law requiring people to buy health insurance, a Harvard study says.
The new study, which appears in todays American Journal of Medicine, found that between early 2007 and mid-2009, the share of all Massachusetts bankruptcies with a medical cause went from 59.3 percent to 52.9 percent, a non-significant decrease of 6.4 percentage points. Because there was a sharp rise in total bankruptcies during that period, the actual number of medical bankruptcy filings in the state rose from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.
The findings have national implications because the Obama administrations health law is largely patterned after the Massachusetts plan, including its individual mandate. One of the administrations arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.
In short, ObamaCare will not reduce the number of medical bankruptcies. It was claimed during the debates prior to its enactment that it would reduce them.
To explain why medical bankruptcies persist in Massachusetts, the authors of the new study write: Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts as in other states afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services.
Another claim used to justify passing ObamaCare goes down in flames.
There is a masterstroke hidden inside the Affordable Care Act that will ensure not only the rapid move to a single-payer system, but also the full government takeover of the medical industry.
Articles: ObamaCare's Looming Land Mine
The article ignores the fact that medical bankruptcies have been a problem for a long time, and does not study whether medical bankruptcies will rise or fall under ObamaCare.
Massachusetts if the father of ObamaCare. But in Massachusetts, the Bronze Plan is even worse than the one for ObamaCare. The government's cost share is smaller there.
So let's do a more objective examination than the highly biased American Thinker:
In short, ObamaCare will not reduce the number of medical bankruptcies. It was claimed during the debates prior to its enactment that it would reduce them.
To explain why medical bankruptcies persist in Massachusetts, the authors of the new study write: Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts as in other states afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services.
Another claim used to justify passing ObamaCare goes down in flames.
your own 'objective examination' new study states that MA medical bankruptcies increased 33% (7,504 to 10,093) after Romneycare went into effect....obviously the relative percentage only went down a bit because the grand total of all types of bankruptcies increased due to the recession...
want to try again...?
Wow! You both have gross reading comprehension problems. My post SUPPORTS the OP.
I just don't drink the piss of highly partisan web sites like American Thinker before believing a claim that aligns with my own biases.
Read again.
One of the administrations arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.
Wow! You both have gross reading comprehension problems. My post SUPPORTS the OP.
I just don't drink the piss of highly partisan web sites like American Thinker before believing a claim that aligns with my own biases.
Read again.
read your own material again....here's a highlight....
One of the administration’s arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.
Wow! You both have gross reading comprehension problems. My post SUPPORTS the OP.
I just don't drink the piss of highly partisan web sites like American Thinker before believing a claim that aligns with my own biases.
Read again.
read your own material again....here's a highlight....
One of the administrations arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.
You STILL don't get it!
You have it in your mind that I am a supporter of ObamaCare (dead wrong) and therefore must be defending this claim that it will reduce medical bankruptcies.
When will you idiots realize I defend the TRUTH, not Obama or ObamaCare.
And it is the TRUTH that ObamaCare most likely will not reduce medical bankruptcies, based on the results of RomneyCare's inability to reduce them.
Now here is where I fervently hope the GOP does not fall on its face once again.
FACT: ObamaCare will not reduce medical bankruptcies.
So is the Right going to come up with solutions to reduce medical bankruptcies? Or are they just going to continue to do monkey dances over the poor rollout of ObamaCare and its failures?
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Instead of trying to repeal ObamaCare (never going to happen) and being the party that actually cheers and dances about when people get fucked over, offer up additions and repairs.
Now here is where I fervently hope the GOP does not fall on its face once again.
FACT: ObamaCare will not reduce medical bankruptcies.
So is the Right going to come up with solutions to reduce medical bankruptcies? Or are they just going to continue to do monkey dances over the poor rollout of ObamaCare and its failures?
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Instead of trying to repeal ObamaCare (never going to happen) and being the party that actually cheers and dances about when people get fucked over, offer up additions and repairs.
why the hell should the right try to 'fix' Obamacare....?
in any case once you are bankrupt and poor you are eligible for Medicaid....
g5, you claim to be a Republican, but are defending a Democratic disaster. How on Earth do you do it?
This link is misleading for two reasons. First the yearly maximum out of pocket costs have been decreased in most plans. In many plans it's the same or very close to same as the deductible. Also the $15,000+ catastrophic plans have been eliminated as well as employee turnover rate plans. Second single payer is not near as popular among Democrats as Republicans assume. Obama's first choice was single payer. Only after he was assured that it would never pass a Democratic control House and Senate did he agree to the current federally regulated insurance based plan.There is a masterstroke hidden inside the Affordable Care Act that will ensure not only the rapid move to a single-payer system, but also the full government takeover of the medical industry.
Articles: ObamaCare's Looming Land Mine
This link is misleading for two reasons. First the yearly maximum out of pocket costs have been decreased in most plans. In many plans it's the same or very close to same as the deductible. Also the $15,000+ catastrophic plans have been eliminated as well as employee turnover rate plans. Second single payer is not near as popular among Democrats as Republicans assume. Obama's first choice was single payer. Only after he was assured that it would never pass a Democratic control House and Senate did he agree to the current federally regulated insurance based plan.There is a masterstroke hidden inside the Affordable Care Act that will ensure not only the rapid move to a single-payer system, but also the full government takeover of the medical industry.
Articles: ObamaCare's Looming Land Mine
