somebodys wrong ...

[PredFan]

It's the absolute truth.

Its a cheap talking point and scare tactic to degrade single payer. Anybody with a brain knows that creating a failing progressive healthcare plan does not lead to a double down on progressive ideology or single payer... it leads to a change of power and a replacement from an opposing ideological policy, which is exactly what is happening. There is no way that was Obamas intent... The facts that are right in front of your face prove your theory wrong.

It absolutely does. Obamacare was designed solely to establish yet another entitlement. THe dems know that once an entitlement is established, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. It was designed to fail after establishing that entitlement so that to "fix the problems" we would eventually go to single payer. It's the truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Not even close dude... The R's have proposed a full repeal bill multiple times and now that they are in the drivers seat they propose this crap bill. You all have the power to repeal and take away the entitlement if you want. You were elected and you have numbers. Not impossible... Very doable. And if it is the best thing to do for our country then the results will reflect it.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me. The entitlement is here to stay.

The GOP only proposed full repeal because they knew it would get vetoed by Obama. When they actually had the opportunity to foot they won't. Why? Because the are spineless bastards who fear a backlash from voters for taking away an ENTITLEMENT. The left knew this, that's why Obamacare was designed to fail. Back in 2009, few Americans would accept socialized medicine, it's still true today. But as long as this entitlement exists, we are stead fast on the road to it.

Understand?

Yeah thats one way to look at it... or perhaps they feel the weight of responsibility that is now on their shoulders and are trying their best to deal with the oxymoron of helping our sick citizens with less funding, resources and guidance.

It may be fine for you to allow the irresponsible and poor people in our nation to die or suffer without healthcare, but for most, that just doesn't sit well with them...

Didn't know you liked the GOP so much, lol.

I assure you, it's all about appearances and votes.

 

[PredFan]

Its a cheap talking point and scare tactic to degrade single payer. Anybody with a brain knows that creating a failing progressive healthcare plan does not lead to a double down on progressive ideology or single payer... it leads to a change of power and a replacement from an opposing ideological policy, which is exactly what is happening. There is no way that was Obamas intent... The facts that are right in front of your face prove your theory wrong.

It absolutely does. Obamacare was designed solely to establish yet another entitlement. THe dems know that once an entitlement is established, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. It was designed to fail after establishing that entitlement so that to "fix the problems" we would eventually go to single payer. It's the truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Not even close dude... The R's have proposed a full repeal bill multiple times and now that they are in the drivers seat they propose this crap bill. You all have the power to repeal and take away the entitlement if you want. You were elected and you have numbers. Not impossible... Very doable. And if it is the best thing to do for our country then the results will reflect it.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me. The entitlement is here to stay.

The GOP only proposed full repeal because they knew it would get vetoed by Obama. When they actually had the opportunity to foot they won't. Why? Because the are spineless bastards who fear a backlash from voters for taking away an ENTITLEMENT. The left knew this, that's why Obamacare was designed to fail. Back in 2009, few Americans would accept socialized medicine, it's still true today. But as long as this entitlement exists, we are stead fast on the road to it.

Understand?

Yeah thats one way to look at it... or perhaps they feel the weight of responsibility that is now on their shoulders and are trying their best to deal with the oxymoron of helping our sick citizens with less funding, resources and guidance.

It may be fine for you to allow the irresponsible and poor people in our nation to die or suffer without healthcare, but for most, that just doesn't sit well with them...

The gop has not, and never will, win an election with a platform of cutting people's access to healthcare simply because that's ideologically what they want to do.

The facts that Obamacare does not make premiums/deductables always affordable, or even that fewer people enrolled in the exchanges than the CBO predicted have nothing to do with the gop's decision to cover fewer people with fewer dollars.

IF the gop set forth a plan that arguably would reduce costs, that would be another thing. But they don't have the votes to totally repeal Obamacare, end employer sponsonered tax gimmes for employers, and "give" people tax credits instead, and require providers and insurers to disclose true costs and outcomes. So the gop's plan is neither an improvement to Obamacare nor a true alternative to make sure all of us have access to care.

Oh yeah? Trump just won doing exactly that.

 

[Slade3200]

Our system's been fucked up ever since it went for profit, other nations have figured out how to deal with healthcare on a national level that works much better than ours for less cost. Our predatory "capitalist" elites have decided we will do what wrings more profit out of the system for them rather than embrace what works in a globally competitive society for all. It's just who we are.

Well, you progressives keep your socialized medicine to yourself leave the rest of us out of it. Our participation is not needed...

Your participation is used to cover Emergency room costs for the uninsured whether you like it or not. Don't even try to lobby for cutting that off like I know you are tempted to do. It just isn't going to happen so lets keep this conversation in the realm of reality.

Responsible people pay for their own shit, fucked up socialists expect other people to pay for their shit...

The majority of people in this country are responsible people who pay for their own shit and willingly pay more to fund our government to defend our nation and work on programs to better the lives of our citizens. Only a small fraction of extremists like you really think that no taxes and no government would lead to a better society. Anarchy sounds fun but would never work for a Nation of our size. Grow up and get real

Socialist entitlement programs do not make the country better… It weakens the country

Some do and some don't depends on the person... maybe you should try and take an objective look and not a self centered selfish look at how societies work

 

[PredFan]

It increased the number of people insured because it was mandated, that's not freedom and that is wrong. And it also increased the number because it gave away free healthcare to the poor, that is also wrong because others were forced to pay for it. Any way you look at Obamacare it is a failure.

I would have preferred that Obamacare get repealed and not replaced. I don't like this RINOcare any more than Obamacare.

Do you realize that these uninsured that come as a result of dropping the mandate and cutting medicare will only result in more sick uninsured people going to the emergency room and the tax payers fronting the bill for the costs? There is a smarter way to spend our money and it should be pretty obvious to you that the more people who have health insurance the better off everybody is.

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

They survived by charging a shit ton of money for healthcare and medications while selectively insuring as many "healthy" people as they could. If you had a preexisting condition you were fucked. If you were a health risk, you were fucked. If you bought a cheap plan that covered very little and you got sick you were fucked. Despite all of these things that allowed insurers to take advantage of citizens prices and premiums still sky rocketed. Did you forget that there were many problems prior to Obamacare? Don't pretend like everything was hunky dorey

So why are premiums more now than they were then? It's not true that you were fucked if you had a pre-existing condition. It depended on your current situation. I know a person who has a daughter with a severe birth defect. Yeah, she had to fight them but she won every time. It's also not true that if you are a health risk you were fucked. You may have had to pay higher premiums with some companies, but you could still get it. If you make the choice to save money by buying a cheap plan, you gambled and either win or lost. The fact remains that costs were cheaper before Obamacare.

How did your friends daughter fight them?

My friend did, not her daughter. She did it by reading the law, writing, and standing up. I didn't ask all the details. I just know that her daughter is now 19 and in an extended living facility. My friend is not broke, bankrupt, or "fucked".

 

[PredFan]

In your scenario, no hospital or medical practice could survive. So how did they make it before His Highness Obama came on the scene?

They survived by charging a shit ton of money for healthcare and medications while selectively insuring as many "healthy" people as they could. If you had a preexisting condition you were fucked. If you were a health risk, you were fucked. If you bought a cheap plan that covered very little and you got sick you were fucked. Despite all of these things that allowed insurers to take advantage of citizens prices and premiums still sky rocketed. Did you forget that there were many problems prior to Obamacare? Don't pretend like everything was hunky dorey

So why are premiums more now than they were then? It's not true that you were fucked if you had a pre-existing condition. It depended on your current situation. I know a person who has a daughter with a severe birth defect. Yeah, she had to fight them but she won every time. It's also not true that if you are a health risk you were fucked. You may have had to pay higher premiums with some companies, but you could still get it. If you make the choice to save money by buying a cheap plan, you gambled and either win or lost. The fact remains that costs were cheaper before Obamacare.

Healthcare costs have been rising forever love, not just once HeritageFoundationCare was implemented nationally as opposed to only in MA.

Exhibit 1
Total Health Expenditure per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted.



Exhibit 2
Total Health Expenditure per Capita and GDP per Capita, US and Selected Countries, 2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates.



Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008



Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

Um, that does nothing to dispute my claim that Obamacare is a failure. Please try to stay relevant.

Here is proof that it has not failed... sorry if your wallet is hurting, maybe we can focus on making it more affordable instead of spreading lies:
A new website shares the powerful stories of lives saved by the Affordable Care Act.

Ah! The old "If one life is saved, it's worth it" ploy. Sorry, doesn't fly in reality.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ok, "totally" is the wrong word. I noticed that they only talked about coverage and didn't mention that the CBO agreed with 0bama when he claimed that Obamacare would lower premiums, nor did the mention that the CBO claimed that Obamacare would not cost the taxpayers money.

It's the CBO that has no credibility.

Not that I like the GOP plan, I call it RINOcare. Obamacare should have been repealed and not replaced.

Repeal the ACA and replace Paul Ryan.

Who pays the hospital costs for the uninsured? No one dares answer that question

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

Healthcare costs rose at annual rates nearly 75% larger than they do under the ACA.

If you had even the slightest clue about healthcare you would not be making the arguments you are.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

blue, purple, green, pick a color, you can present real world stats to these idiots until you face turns, do they have the mental capacity to understand anything other than OBAMA BAD ... hell no, not on your life, or theirs.

Oh I know, I just don't mind.

It has nothing to do with Barry, it's about the concept of socialism/globalism/it takes a village shit. Why can't people pay for their own shit?

Why can't people pay for their own shit?

That's the point of the mandate. Remove the runaway costs of carrying the uninsured by requiring that everyone have coverage.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who pays the hospital costs for the uninsured? No one dares answer that question

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

Irrelevant.

Let me help you out here.

The discussion was about how HOSPITALS and MEDICAL PRACTICES survived before Obama came along.

It's really the only thing that's relevant.
Those costs grow largely due to the treatment of the uninsured.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm not surprised you couldn't make your way through the material.

Seen it all before. As I said, the numbers are skewed purposely by the WHO. I'm surprised we were that high. Last time they had us at something like #30.

I would expect nothing other than this from you, the post was for other eyes, you just don't deal with anything outside your rigid belief system reverend.

My rigid belief system is based on facts. Yeah, I refuse to deal with anything but facts.

Exhibit 3
Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008




Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), “OECD Health Data”, OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).
Notes: Data from Australia and Japan are 2007 data. Figures for Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, are OECD estimates. Numbers are PPP adjusted. Break in series: CAN(1995); SWE(1993, 2001); SWI(1995); UK (1997). Numbers are PPP adjusted. Estimates for Canada and Switzerland in 2008.

Health Care Insurance costs skyrocketed under GW and Obama.

Growing at a slower annual rate since the ACA was enacted.

 

[PredFan]

Repeal the ACA and replace Paul Ryan.

Who pays the hospital costs for the uninsured? No one dares answer that question

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

Healthcare costs rose at annual rates nearly 75% larger than they do under the ACA.

If you had even the slightest clue about healthcare you would not be making the arguments you are.

i seriously doubt that, but hey, if left unrepealed, it was scheduled to go up sharply again. Part of the reason, possibly the main reason, is government regulation. And yes I know quite a bit about healthcare. I've been doing it for 34 years.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who pays the hospital costs for the uninsured? No one dares answer that question

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

Healthcare costs rose at annual rates nearly 75% larger than they do under the ACA.

If you had even the slightest clue about healthcare you would not be making the arguments you are.

i seriously doubt that, but hey, if left unrepealed, it was scheduled to go up sharply again. Part of the reason, possibly the main reason, is government regulation. And yes I know quite a bit about healthcare. I've been doing it for 34 years.

See the second part of my previous post.

You're clueless, dude.

 

[PredFan]

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

Irrelevant.

Let me help you out here.

The discussion was about how HOSPITALS and MEDICAL PRACTICES survived before Obama came along.

It's really the only thing that's relevant.
Those costs grow largely due to the treatment of the uninsured.

Wrong. The study is about person bankruptcy, not about hospitals going under. That's what my question was about. Don't try to move the goal posts.

 

[PredFan]

The hospitals do, it's a write off.

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

Healthcare costs rose at annual rates nearly 75% larger than they do under the ACA.

If you had even the slightest clue about healthcare you would not be making the arguments you are.

i seriously doubt that, but hey, if left unrepealed, it was scheduled to go up sharply again. Part of the reason, possibly the main reason, is government regulation. And yes I know quite a bit about healthcare. I've been doing it for 34 years.

See the second part of my previous post.

You're clueless, dude.

Obamacare rates are predicted to skyrocket. If not repealed that would fuck your numbers up.

 

[Rustic]

Well, you progressives keep your socialized medicine to yourself leave the rest of us out of it. Our participation is not needed...

Your participation is used to cover Emergency room costs for the uninsured whether you like it or not. Don't even try to lobby for cutting that off like I know you are tempted to do. It just isn't going to happen so lets keep this conversation in the realm of reality.

Responsible people pay for their own shit, fucked up socialists expect other people to pay for their shit...

The majority of people in this country are responsible people who pay for their own shit and willingly pay more to fund our government to defend our nation and work on programs to better the lives of our citizens. Only a small fraction of extremists like you really think that no taxes and no government would lead to a better society. Anarchy sounds fun but would never work for a Nation of our size. Grow up and get real

Socialist entitlement programs do not make the country better… It weakens the country

Some do and some don't depends on the person... maybe you should try and take an objective look and not a self centered selfish look at how societies work

Socialism has never worked in the history of civilization, long-term… Fact

 

[Slade3200]

Its a cheap talking point and scare tactic to degrade single payer. Anybody with a brain knows that creating a failing progressive healthcare plan does not lead to a double down on progressive ideology or single payer... it leads to a change of power and a replacement from an opposing ideological policy, which is exactly what is happening. There is no way that was Obamas intent... The facts that are right in front of your face prove your theory wrong.

It absolutely does. Obamacare was designed solely to establish yet another entitlement. THe dems know that once an entitlement is established, it's virtually impossible to get rid of. It was designed to fail after establishing that entitlement so that to "fix the problems" we would eventually go to single payer. It's the truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Not even close dude... The R's have proposed a full repeal bill multiple times and now that they are in the drivers seat they propose this crap bill. You all have the power to repeal and take away the entitlement if you want. You were elected and you have numbers. Not impossible... Very doable. And if it is the best thing to do for our country then the results will reflect it.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me. The entitlement is here to stay.

The GOP only proposed full repeal because they knew it would get vetoed by Obama. When they actually had the opportunity to foot they won't. Why? Because the are spineless bastards who fear a backlash from voters for taking away an ENTITLEMENT. The left knew this, that's why Obamacare was designed to fail. Back in 2009, few Americans would accept socialized medicine, it's still true today. But as long as this entitlement exists, we are stead fast on the road to it.

Understand?

Yeah thats one way to look at it... or perhaps they feel the weight of responsibility that is now on their shoulders and are trying their best to deal with the oxymoron of helping our sick citizens with less funding, resources and guidance.

It may be fine for you to allow the irresponsible and poor people in our nation to die or suffer without healthcare, but for most, that just doesn't sit well with them...

Didn't know you liked the GOP so much, lol.

I assure you, it's all about appearances and votes.

I don't like either of the major political parties... They are both phony and full of BS

 

[Rustic]

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

blue, purple, green, pick a color, you can present real world stats to these idiots until you face turns, do they have the mental capacity to understand anything other than OBAMA BAD ... hell no, not on your life, or theirs.

Oh I know, I just don't mind.

It has nothing to do with Barry, it's about the concept of socialism/globalism/it takes a village shit. Why can't people pay for their own shit?

Why can't people pay for their own shit?

That's the point of the mandate. Remove the runaway costs of carrying the uninsured by requiring that everyone have coverage.

So basically one size fits all, it's impossible to have something that is affordable in the one size fits all category. And It is impossible to get acceptable results...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

Irrelevant.

Let me help you out here.

The discussion was about how HOSPITALS and MEDICAL PRACTICES survived before Obama came along.

It's really the only thing that's relevant.
Those costs grow largely due to the treatment of the uninsured.

Wrong. The study is about person bankruptcy, not about hospitals going under. That's what my question was about. Don't try to move the goal posts.

No one said anything about hospitals going under, dope.
The costs of treating the uninsured are transferred to those who are insured or self pay.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Write-off of what?
The vast majority of hospitals and health systems are not for profits.

The ERs need to remain open and staffed whether they turn a profit or not. At some point their cost must be passed on to those who pay.

Oh my! How did any hospital or medical practice ever survive before Obama.

Healthcare costs rose at annual rates nearly 75% larger than they do under the ACA.

If you had even the slightest clue about healthcare you would not be making the arguments you are.

i seriously doubt that, but hey, if left unrepealed, it was scheduled to go up sharply again. Part of the reason, possibly the main reason, is government regulation. And yes I know quite a bit about healthcare. I've been doing it for 34 years.

See the second part of my previous post.

You're clueless, dude.

Obamacare rates are predicted to skyrocket. If not repealed that would fuck your numbers up.

Skyrocket at a much lower rate than before.
This year they were projected to rise around 20%.
The year before the ACA was enacted they rose over 40%.

Get a clue.

 

[AntonToo]

the White House or The CBO ?

WH analysis of ObamaCare replacement projects bigger coverage gap than CBO: report

Trick question - both say more or less same thing - around 25 MILLION LESS PEOPLE WILL HAVE INSURANCE.

"BAD!" as Trump would tweet, but will not, since now it's all they got.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx,

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study David U. Himmelstein, MD,a Deborah Thorne, PhD,b Elizabeth Warren, JD,c Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPHa a Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,

blue, purple, green, pick a color, you can present real world stats to these idiots until you face turns, do they have the mental capacity to understand anything other than OBAMA BAD ... hell no, not on your life, or theirs.

Oh I know, I just don't mind.

It has nothing to do with Barry, it's about the concept of socialism/globalism/it takes a village shit. Why can't people pay for their own shit?

Why can't people pay for their own shit?

That's the point of the mandate. Remove the runaway costs of carrying the uninsured by requiring that everyone have coverage.

So basically one size fits all, it's impossible to have something that is affordable in the one size fits all category. And It is impossible to get acceptable results...

Affordable is relative to who's sick. Obviously a younger, healthier person is going to feel that they're over paying while an older, sicker person feels they're getting a bargain for what they use.