Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance

You have successfully threadjacked your own thread. Congrats.



<blockquote>Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance</blockquote>


I sure hope so.



Currently, we spend about $6200 a person on health care. If these costs add another 1 trillion, assuming there are 240 million people in the US, we will increase spending about $4,166 per capita, leaving us with a tab of 10,300 per person in health care costs. This will be in excess of 20% of GDP. It will never come to pass.



That said, my new position is if it pisses off TR, we should do it.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247462569]You have successfully threadjacked your own thread. Congrats.



<blockquote>Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance</blockquote>


I sure hope so.



Currently, we spend about $6200 a person on health care. If these costs add another 1 trillion, assuming there are 240 million people in the US, we will increase spending about $4,166 per capita, leaving us with a tab of 10,300 per person in health care costs. This will be in excess of 20% of GDP. It will never come to pass.



That said, my new position is if it pisses off TR, we should do it.</blockquote>


I was hoping you would post a cute picture, instead I got the condescending comment. <strong>I am still waiting for the proof that the U.S. Bankruptcy rate is higher then the Canadian because of medical reasons.</strong> Oh and if you choose to answer can you explain why in 2006 and 2007 it was lower in the US? Less people with medical bankruptcies?



Can you throw a cute picture in as well?
 
This would have been a funny picture to put in.



<img src="http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:3S29XHDX8Q_gqM:http://www.freewebs.com" alt="" />
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247465712][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247462569]You have successfully threadjacked your own thread. Congrats.



<blockquote>Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance</blockquote>


I sure hope so.



Currently, we spend about $6200 a person on health care. If these costs add another 1 trillion, assuming there are 240 million people in the US, we will increase spending about $4,166 per capita, leaving us with a tab of 10,300 per person in health care costs. This will be in excess of 20% of GDP. It will never come to pass.



That said, my new position is if it pisses off TR, we should do it.</blockquote>


I was hoping you would post a cute picture, instead I got the condescending comment. <strong>I am still waiting for the proof that the U.S. Bankruptcy rate is higher then the Canadian because of medical reasons.</strong> Oh and if you choose to answer can you explain why in 2006 and 2007 it was lower in the US? Less people with medical bankruptcies?



Can you throw a cute picture in as well?</blockquote>


Here's your proof:



<a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1">http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1</a>



<blockquote>ABSTRACT:



In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9?2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.</blockquote>


If you want to disprove it, you must show a study that shows a different result - not one that cherry picks out cases out of the sample. No study ever has a perfect sample. Lets look at Canadian bankrupcy on whole:



<a href="http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankruptcy/causes-of-bankruptcy-in-canada.htm">http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankruptcy/causes-of-bankruptcy-in-canada.htm</a>



<blockquote><strong>The three leading causes of personal bankruptcy in Canada</strong>

<strong>The first one on the list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada is job loss</strong>, or reduced income in general. Loosing your job or having your overtime reduced, for example, can make it increasingly difficult for you to make your debt payments.



Faced with a job loss, one of your keys to survival is reducing your expenses as quickly as possible to free up cash and continue servicing your debts. This is of course easier said than done, since you cannot quickly reduce your rent or car payments, but remember that reducing other expenses, whenever possible, is often the key to avoiding bankruptcy.



<strong>Another one of leading contributors to personal bankruptcy in Canada is marriage separation or divorce</strong>. Approximately one third of all people filing personal bankruptcy in Canada are either separated or divorced at the time of filing.



It?s easy to see why separation and divorce can lead to financial problems. As a couple you only have to pay rent once, and you only have one phone bill, hydro bill, and you share most other expenses. Once you are separated, you are each paying your own bills, so your expenses increase, but your income stays the same.



If you have debts when you separate, your increased expenses may make it difficult to continue to service the debts.



<strong>The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems</strong>; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. <em>Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America</em>.



However, if you get sick or injured, and you are off work for a number of months, even with medical insurance your income is reduced, and that makes it more difficult to service your debts.

</blockquote>


Facts:



People file for BK in the US because they can't pay thier medical bills, but otherwise can meet thier obligations.

People file for BK in Canada because they got sick and couldn't work and pay thier bills, but NEVER because they couldn't pay thier medical bills.



I don't have any funny pictures for your capacity to ignore facts. It's just sad.
 
Can you explain why in 2006 and 2007 Bankruptcies in the US were lower then they were in Canada?



Then in 2007 we are barely higher?



Did less people have medical problems in the US those years.



<strong>You had the capacity to ignore those facts in your own chart.</strong>



So can you answer the above question about the numbers?



No Study is perfect? Did you read it? Do you know who wrote it?



Maybe less people in Canada have a gambling addiction. That was included as a condition that led to medical bankruptcy.



They also set a pretty low threashold for the dollar amount.



<blockquote><strong>it also asked whether the debtor had medical debts exceeding $1,000</strong></blockquote>


<img src="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex2.gif" alt="" />



<blockquote>1) cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy, or (2) reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past years, or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness/injury, or (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Our more inclusive category, ?Any Medical Bankruptcy,? included debtors who cited any of the above, or addiction, or uncontrolled gambling, or birth, or the death of a family member.</blockquote>


Oh and Birth counted as well. If I have a kid my finances can be hurt go figure.



So if a person loses two weeks of work and has $1,000 in medical expenses they go bankrupt.



I think if you went to a financial planner and told them you didn't have enough money if you missed work for 2 weeks and if you ran up another $1,000 in expenses the would tell you that you are in trouble. Medical bills or not.



It is hard to take this seriously when they site $1,000 as major medical expenses.



You seem to have the capacity to throw out any old graph or article and expect for to be taken like the gospel truth.



Sorry but your article is a joke.



<a href="http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/medical-bankruptcy-myths/#more-189">Counter to your article.</a>



<blockquote>In a 2005 article in the Northwestern University Law Review, Prof. Todd J. Zywicki called the $1,000 threshold for contributing medical debt "indefensible." </blockquote>


<blockquote>In a 2006 review (gated) of the H & W study results in Health Affairs, David Dranove and Michael L. Millenson:



Recalculate the medical bankruptcy rate using the data given in the H & W paper. They conclude that just 17 percent of the H & W sample "had medical expenditure bankruptcies," although it cannot be stated "with any degree of certainty whether medical spending was the most important cause of bankruptcy."

Explain that "four decades of studies have addressed the bankruptcy-medical spending connection" and that the results from those studies are much closer to their 17 percent estimate than to the 54.5 percent estimates of H & W.

Cite a 2002 Fay, Hurst, and White American Economic Review study, which found no statistical link between bankruptcies and health problems.

Cite a 1999 Domowitz and Sartain Journal of Finance study, which found that high medical debt raised the probability of bankruptcy for the tiny proportion of the population that had high medical debt, but that at the margin, credit cards were the largest single contribution to bankruptcy. </blockquote>
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247476984]Can you explain why in 2006 and 2007 Bankruptcies in the US were lower then they were in Canada?</blockquote>


Yes. The numbers get skewed right before/after the change in BK legislation.



<blockquote>Then in 2007 we are barely higher?



Did less people have medical problems in the US those years.



<strong>You had the capacity to ignore those facts in your own chart.</strong>



So can you answer the above question about the numbers?



No Study is perfect?</blockquote>


It's not a perfect sample because it's a sample. Asking somebody to study every case is unreasonable, but this misses the larger point:<strong> I never said that.</strong> I said:



[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247470468] No study ever has a perfect sample.</blockquote>


<em>Stop claiming I said/wrote things I never said.</em>



<blockquote>Did you read it? Do you know who wrote it? </blockquote>


Yes.



<blockquote>Maybe less people in Canada have a gambling addiction. That was included as a condition that led to medical bankruptcy.</blockquote>


Your logic error:



Begging the Question: a logic lapse committed when, instead of offering proof for its conclusion, an argument simply reasserts the conclusion in another form



You're the one who said the study is bunk. Prove it or STFU - that means prove it with another study with a dataset that comes to another conclusion.



<blockquote>They also set a pretty low threashold for the dollar amount.



<blockquote><strong>it also asked whether the debtor had medical debts exceeding $1,000</strong></blockquote>


<img src="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex2.gif" alt="" />



<blockquote>1) cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy, or (2) reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past years, or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness/injury, or (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Our more inclusive category, ?Any Medical Bankruptcy,? included debtors who cited any of the above, or addiction, or uncontrolled gambling, or birth, or the death of a family member.</blockquote>


Oh and Birth counted as well. If I have a kid my finances can be hurt go figure.</blockquote>


Your logic error here is:



Sweeping (or Hasty) Generalization: This assumes that what is true for one is true for all.



<blockquote>So if a person loses two weeks of work and has $1,000 in medical expenses they go bankrupt.



I think if you went to a financial planner and told them you didn't have enough money if you missed work for 2 weeks and if you ran up another $1,000 in expenses the would tell you that you are in trouble. Medical bills or not.



It is hard to take this seriously when they site $1,000 as major medical expenses.



You seem to have the capacity to throw out any old graph or article and expect for to be taken like the gospel truth.



Sorry but your article is a joke.</blockquote>


Based on what? The fact you can?t find any data to dispute my point?



Also, you are making this logic error:



Question-begging epithets: are statements that state a judgment and treat it as a fact.



<blockquote><a href="http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/medical-bankruptcy-myths/#more-189">Counter to your article.</a>



<blockquote>In a 2005 article in the Northwestern University Law Review, Prof. Todd J. Zywicki called the $1,000 threshold for contributing medical debt "indefensible." </blockquote>


<blockquote>In a 2006 review (gated) of the H & W study results in Health Affairs, David Dranove and Michael L. Millenson:



Recalculate the medical bankruptcy rate using the data given in the H & W paper. They conclude that just 17 percent of the H & W sample "had medical expenditure bankruptcies," although it cannot be stated "with any degree of certainty whether medical spending was the most important cause of bankruptcy."

Explain that "four decades of studies have addressed the bankruptcy-medical spending connection" and that the results from those studies are much closer to their 17 percent estimate than to the 54.5 percent estimates of H & W.

Cite a 2002 Fay, Hurst, and White American Economic Review study, which found no statistical link between bankruptcies and health problems.

Cite a 1999 Domowitz and Sartain Journal of Finance study, which found that high medical debt raised the probability of bankruptcy for the tiny proportion of the population that had high medical debt, but that at the margin, credit cards were the largest single contribution to bankruptcy. </blockquote></blockquote>


<a href="http://money.aol.ca/article/capital-one-credit-card-defaults-rise-in-may/645915/">http://money.aol.ca/article/capital-one-credit-card-defaults-rise-in-may/645915/</a>



<blockquote>Capital One credit card defaults rise in MaySource: Reuters

Posted: 06/15/09 9:11AM

Filed Under: Main

U.S. credit card default rate rises to 9.41 percent



International card default rate rises to 9.77 percent



In international operations, including Canada and Britain, the charge-off rate rose to 9.77 percent in May from 8.91 percent in April, while the delinquency rate increased to 6.69 percent from 6.43 percent. </blockquote>


Our numbers went down thanks to changes in the BK laws that made discharging CC debt harder here. The default rates are roughly the same. If the default rates are roughly the same, explain why the BK numbers were different before the change. Use data and cites, please.



In particular, I want you to refute this (already cited):



<blockquote>Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, <strong>out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness.</strong> Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.</blockquote>


Stop citing the cutoff of $1000 and start talking about the average of $11,854.
 
<blockquote>Prove it or STFU - that means prove it with another study with a dataset that comes to another conclusion.

</blockquote>


What does STFU mean?
 
<blockquote>Based on what? The fact you can?t find any data to dispute my point?</blockquote>


I have found data and posted links for you to read.



So let me get your logic a pro universal health care doctor does a "study" and until someone else runs another study to disprove the point the original study is the bible?



<a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v99/n4/1463/LR99n4Zywick.pdf">This is a long one but you can skip to 1514 to see whatProfessor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Senior Research Fellow,</a>



<blockquote>Perhaps most striking is the evidence of the mid-1990s, which indicates

that bankruptcies were rising most dramatically during the period

when health care inflation had virtually disappeared.</blockquote>


Oh I could keep posting just read the article and see what he says.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247444520][quote author="stepping_up" date=1247441331]Yes, R&D is a large expense, but advertising shouldn't be. </blockquote>


Is R&D more in Mexico than here? Here's an alternate theory:



1. The Drug Mfgs. are gouging the US customer or

2. US customers are subsidizing users in other countries who pay a fraction of the price that we do.</blockquote>
It's #2. Reference the costs numbers above. The drugs are researched and marketed with a target price to recoup costs & profit in the US. That's why the companies put the partial billion dollars bets down.



Foreign customers in Mexico, Canada and elsewhere are largely gravy.



#2 is the also the answer for Medicare. Private insurance is subsidizing the ability to deliver medicare services.



The operative question is, what happens when #2 is no longer possible?



I'm not afraid of rationing healthcare. Everyone needs to learn the word. Any insurance plan, whether universal healthcare or private insurance is about rationing healthcare.



The main problem we have is that too many think there should be no limit on the efforts and expenditures to treat or even merely extend life.
 
TR, thanks for keeping no_vas out of trouble, and staying here in the politics threads. I will remind the both of you, no name calling even in the politics threads. Also, it is just the intarwebs people, someone is always wrong on the intarwebs.



[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247481672][quote author="trrenter" date=1247476984]Can you explain why in 2006 and 2007 Bankruptcies in the US were lower then they were in Canada?</blockquote>


Yes. The numbers get skewed right before/after the change in BK legislation.</blockquote>


Duh! Was this a serious question? BKs tanked in 06 and 07 because in 2005 they soared due to the new legislation.



http://i31.tinypic.com/10mv4u1.jpg



http://i27.tinypic.com/15xr1j5.jpg



http://i25.tinypic.com/2ij5kbk.jpg



Sorry, I just had to add some chartpr0n to visualize the answer.
 
<a href="http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/uploadedFiles/Faculty/Directory_and_Profiles/personal_bank.pdf?zbrandid=406&zidType=CH&zid=2716038&zsubscriberId=235471680">Another Study debunking the bogus "study" you posted</a>



<blockquote>Finally, we estimate the sensitivity of bankruptcy filing to medical conditions,

conditional on households with different consumption patterns. Although households

27

with medical conditions are twice more likely to file for bankruptcy (33.5 percent) than

households that do not have medical conditions (14.8 percent), employment status makes

a much smaller difference to filing probability (20.9 percent for unemployed filers and

15.0 for employed filers). Interestingly, the difference between filing probability for

unemployed and employed filers is very similar to the difference between the filing

probability between households that display higher consumption-to-income ratios and

those that display lower ratios. Consumption makes minor difference for households that

are already adversely impacted by health problems and unemployment. In contrast,

greater mortgage and credit card debts can more than double the filing bankruptcy for

households that do not experience such adverse events (i.e. for households that do not

have health problems, having a higher level mortgage can increase the filing probability

by about 200 percent, from 8.8 to 25.7 percent). Given that only about 5 percent of the

control households experience serious medical <strong>conditions and about 13 percent of the

households experience unemployment, our analyses indicate that consumption pattern has

considerable impact on the filing probability for the majority of the population</strong>.</blockquote>


Should I keep going it is widely held that your report or study was conducted by two doctors that were pro universal health care.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247483915]<blockquote>Prove it or STFU - that means prove it with another study with a dataset that comes to another conclusion.

</blockquote>


What does STFU mean?</blockquote>






<a href="http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/shut-the-fuck-up.jpg">Here's a hint.</a>
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1247487956]TR, thanks for keeping no_vas out of trouble, and staying here in the politics threads. I will remind the both of you, no name calling even in the politics threads. Also, it is just the intarwebs people, someone is always wrong on the intarwebs.



[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247481672][quote author="trrenter" date=1247476984]Can you explain why in 2006 and 2007 Bankruptcies in the US were lower then they were in Canada?</blockquote>


Yes. The numbers get skewed right before/after the change in BK legislation.</blockquote>


Duh! Was this a serious question? BKs tanked in 06 and 07 because in 2005 they soared due to the new legislation.



http://i31.tinypic.com/10mv4u1.jpg



http://i27.tinypic.com/15xr1j5.jpg



http://i25.tinypic.com/2ij5kbk.jpg



Sorry, I just had to add some chartpr0n to visualize the answer.</blockquote>


Thank you love the chart porn.



So when I look at this chart I understand the ramifications of the change in legislation.



Now it was alluded to that Bankruptcies in Canada are half of what they are in the US and medical bankruptcies are the main factor.



These were unexpected health problems so I would assume that all the poeple that could have their debts eliminated were cleared out.



I would think that by 2008 the unexpected medical bankruptcies would have increased the number again and yet we are barely higher.



It seems that the US bankruptcy laws became stricter like they are in Canada and that may be the reason for the difference before.



Edited to add:

The report that is used to substaniate the claim that bankruptcies are caused over 60% of the time had a two year window for the medical expense that caused the bankaruptcy.



In other words if ALL people that could file for bankruptcy due to medical reasons filed in 2005 we should have a fresh crop in the 2008 numbers.



Or to put it another way the number of bankruptcies in 2008 would only be 1.5 per thousand if the report is true.



That seems like an awfully low number of bankruptcies.
 
I'm late to the game in this thread, and I will be honest... I don't have the time to read all the links. But, after poking around the <a href="http://www.abiworld.org/">ABI</a> site, <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/729251.html">I did find this article</a>, and this point...



<em>The first nationwide study on medical causes of bankruptcy (released June 4 by Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University) found that <strong>62.1 percent</strong> of all bankruptcies filed in <strong>2007 were related to medical problems</strong>. This represents a <strong>50 percent increase since 2001</strong>.</em>



So in 2001 there were nearly twice as many BKs as 2007, but the medical reasons for BKs continued to increase. What am I missing here? Either I am missing the point, or really medical reasons are the main cause of BKs, at least for the increase in BKs.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1247497067]I'm late to the game in this thread, and I will be honest... I don't have the time to read all the links. But, after poking around the <a href="http://www.abiworld.org/">ABI</a> site, <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/729251.html">I did find this article</a>, and this point...



<em>The first nationwide study on medical causes of bankruptcy (released June 4 by Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University) found that <strong>62.1 percent</strong> of all bankruptcies filed in <strong>2007 were related to medical problems</strong>. This represents a <strong>50 percent increase since 2001</strong>.</em>



So in 2001 there were nearly twice as many BKs as 2007, but the medical reasons for BKs continued to increase. What am I missing here? Either I am missing the point, or really medical reasons are the main cause of BKs, at least for the increase in BKs.</blockquote>


That is what I am trying to figure out too. The study that is widely cited was performed by David Himmelstein who happens to be the intellectual contributor and supporter of Physicians for a national health program. <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/">Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance</a>



Himmelstein routinely advocates for the Canadian Healt Care system to be adopted in the US so I would want some type of corroboration for his numbers. In my search I have only found detractors that seem to suggest his desire to bring Canadian healthcare to the US may have had bearing on this study.



Although these numbers are widely repeated there are many detractors of the study that I have linked too. Here is a sample.



In a 2006 review (gated) of the H & W study results in Health Affairs, David Dranove and Michael L. Millenson:



Recalculate the medical bankruptcy rate using the data given in the H & W paper. They conclude that just 17 percent of the H & W sample "had medical expenditure bankruptcies," although it cannot be stated "with any degree of certainty whether medical spending was the most important cause of bankruptcy."



Explain that "four decades of studies have addressed the bankruptcy-medical spending connection" and that the results from those studies are much closer to their 17 percent estimate than to the 54.5 percent estimates of H & W.



Cite a 2002 Fay, Hurst, and White American Economic Review study, which found no statistical link between bankruptcies and health problems.



Cite a 1999 Domowitz and Sartain Journal of Finance study, which found that high medical debt raised the probability of bankruptcy for the tiny proportion of the population that had high medical debt, but that at the margin, credit cards were the largest single contribution to bankruptcy.



So if we go with the higher numbers given by Himmelstein we "could" probably say that the difference is caused by medical bankruptcies.



There is a data set we are missing though that could help. Base on Himmelsteins methodology how many Bankruptcies in Canada would now fall under the "medical bankruptcy" heading.



I have seen numbers that suggest that "Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older)." However this study was not as generous with the term medical bankrupcty as Himmelsteins. So it is hard to determine how high this number would be if we used the same criteria.



<a href="http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf">Another Link Questioning Himmelsteins numbers</a>



If you go to page three and read Other reasearch you may come to a different conclusion then Himmelstein.



I would think before we could draw a definitive conclusion on the different reasons we would need to take several criteria into account.



Bankruptcy laws in both countries. Where is it easier to file? What can you protect? What can you discharge and what is the amount of the discharge? If all of those factors are better in the US that may play a bigger factor in the increase then Medical Bankruptcy.



We would need the number of "Medical Bankruptcies" In Canada and the USA under one study using the same criteria. Himmelsteins criteria to what I have seen were never used in Canada.



Debt to income level prior to bankruptcy. There are other Criteria that should probably be used as well.



If we go with the lower numbers that have been presented elsewhere the difference still isn't explained.



Maybe my logic is skewed on this.
 
Finally if i do truly believe the numbers presented by Himmelstein. I could take the Bankruptcies from any given year and subract the 68% of people that went bankrupt each year and I would come up with a number.



I am not a mathamatician but I think this is right. Double check before you take this as gospel. I am not presenting this as fact until someone else looks at it and says yes this looks right and your math is right. (that was my disclaimer.) I multiplied the number of American bankruptcies by 32% and what I was left with was the numbers of bankruptcies in the US that were not medical related. I then divided the Americna number by the Canadian bankruptcies and then subtracted that from 100% that will tell you the perecentage higher Canada is compared to the US if we take out the AMerican Bankruptcies due to medical expenses.



I am using the numbers that were supplied



Year US US Minus MB Canada US VS Canada

1999 6.2 1.98 3.6 45% less

2000 5.8 1.86 3.7 50% less

2001 6.8 2.18 3.9 45% less

2002 7.2 2.30 3.8 40% less

2003 7.5 2.40 4.1 42% less

2004 7.1 2.27 4.0 44% less

2005 9.1 2.91 4.1 29% less



MB stands for Medical Bankruptcies.



I will stop here and this will show why I think that assumption is flawed. In 2005 we know why our number is high. Multiply that by 32% which are the number of bankrupcties per Himmelstein that are NOT affected by medical reasons and our number is still lower then Canada's.
 
Face it trrenter



Its over for conservatism. We are heading for Socialism. Your DOOMED.

Here is how bad it could get for you.



<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1</a>

<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-22-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--2">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-22-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--2</a>
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247488839]<a href="http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/uploadedFiles/Faculty/Directory_and_Profiles/personal_bank.pdf?zbrandid=406&zidType=CH&zid=2716038&zsubscriberId=235471680">Another Study debunking the bogus "study" you posted</a>



<blockquote>Finally, we estimate the sensitivity of bankruptcy filing to medical conditions,

conditional on households with different consumption patterns. Although households

27

with medical conditions are twice more likely to file for bankruptcy (33.5 percent) than

households that do not have medical conditions (14.8 percent), employment status makes

a much smaller difference to filing probability (20.9 percent for unemployed filers and

15.0 for employed filers). Interestingly, the difference between filing probability for

unemployed and employed filers is very similar to the difference between the filing

probability between households that display higher consumption-to-income ratios and

those that display lower ratios. Consumption makes minor difference for households that

are already adversely impacted by health problems and unemployment. In contrast,

greater mortgage and credit card debts can more than double the filing bankruptcy for

households that do not experience such adverse events (i.e. for households that do not

have health problems, having a higher level mortgage can increase the filing probability

by about 200 percent, from 8.8 to 25.7 percent). Given that only about 5 percent of the

control households experience serious medical <strong>conditions and about 13 percent of the

households experience unemployment, our analyses indicate that consumption pattern has

considerable impact on the filing probability for the majority of the population</strong>.</blockquote>


Should I keep going it is widely held that your report or study was conducted by two doctors that were pro universal health care.</blockquote>


Logic error - Irrelevant thesis: attempts to prove a conclusion that is not the one at issue.



No one is disputing that consumption patterns have impact on bankruptcy ? people in Canada overconsume and file for the exact same reasons. You are arguing that medical bankruptcies (which happen here, and don?t in Canada) are a fallacy and don't exist - except your own cite explicitly says they do.



From Page 23 of Zhu:



<blockquote><strong>The coefficient for the medical dummy is positive and significant, confirming that

health problems and the related expenses contribute to bankruptcy filings.</strong> Being divorced

does not significantly influence the tendency to file for bankruptcy, which is consistent

with previous findings in Fay et al. (2002). The unemployment dummy is not significant

in any of the specifications, indicating that being unemployed does not automatically

induce households into bankruptcy. Such findings should not be too surprising given the

mixed findings on how labor income and its change can influence filing tendency

differently in Fay et al. (2002). Contrary to the conjecture that longer employment history

helps job retention and reduces filing probability, employment tenure indeed increases

the likelihood of bankruptcy filing, even when we control for unemployment in the same

specification.37 We do not have a ready explanation for why this is the case.</blockquote>


Per your cite:



Does not contribute to BK:

-Divorce

-Unemployment



Contributes to BK:

-Medical

-Long employment tenure



Of larger (although unrelated) interest to the IHB is the previous paragraph:



<blockquote>Households with at least a

child has a higher filing probability and households that own their households are also

much more likely to file for bankruptcy, contrasting previous findings that

homeownership deters bankruptcy filings, our evidence indicates that <strong>owning a house

indeed increases the filing probability</strong>.</blockquote>


Another nail in that "renting is for losers" coffin. I hope.
 
<blockquote>No one is disputing that consumption patterns have impact on bankruptcy ? people in Canada overconsume and file for the exact same reasons. You are arguing that medical bankruptcies (which happen here, and don?t in Canada) are a fallacy and don?t exist - except your own cite explicitly says they do.</blockquote>


UMMM Medical Bankruptcies do exist in Canada.



My argument isn't that Medical Bankruptcies don't exist in the US. I never ever said that. You show me one time where I said they don't exist. For someone so keen on saying don't put words in my mouth!!!



My arguement is Himmelsteins study exagerated the percentage of Medical Bankruptcies. Please re read.



Then I argued that I don't beleive medical bankruptcy ALONE cuased the disparity between Canadian and US bankruptcies.



None of the reports I cite even come close to Himmelsteins number.



<strong>Show me where I argued that medical bankruptcies don't exist.</strong>



So let me make this clear for you.



You have posted Himmelsteins study. You have posted a chart that shows the difference in BK's in Canada and the US. You then alluded to the fact that the disparity is solely based on Medical Bankruptcies. You challenged me to explain the differences in the bankruptcy numbers between the US and Canada. You discarded any information I gave. <strong>IE it is easer to go BK prior to 2005 in the US then in Canada with less reprecussions so that may be a contributing factor. </strong>



<strong>I assume if you ask me the question as to why the diparity you would have concrete proof as to why it exists. You don't seem to have that proof.</strong>



You quoted the Zhu article but you left out this which is what bolstered my argument.



<strong>Givien that only 5% of the control households experience serious medical conditions and about 13% of the households experience unemployment, our anlysis indicate that consumption pattern has considerable impact on the filing probability for the majority of the population.</strong>





They do bolster your point though that medical conditions do increase the likely hood by 7.6%.



This still doesn't get us to the point of Himmelsteins study. Which he did not conduct in Canada.



<strong>Now lets go back to what I believe your orginal statement is/was.



Bankruptcies in the US are twice that of Canada because Canada has universal health care.



That is the point that needs to be proved. Can you corroborate Himmels study. Can you then link that study to the bankruptcy numbers you posted?



You have not proven that point. You discard any evidence to the contrary with our condecending logic errors.</strong>



Zhu has the number at 5% others have it at about 17%, no one even comes close to the Himmelstein number you take as the start of your "<strong>logical"</strong> argument.



If your starting point which is Himmelsteins study is flawed so is the rest of your argument. Even if it isn't you haven't coorolated the two.



You also said that medical bankruptcies do not exist in Canada and that is patently false. Even your study says they are lower in the US then they are in Canada it doesn't say they don't exist in Canada.



One study I posted shows that Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247536839]<blockquote>No one is disputing that consumption patterns have impact on bankruptcy ? people in Canada overconsume and file for the exact same reasons. You are arguing that medical bankruptcies (which happen here, and don?t in Canada) are a fallacy and don?t exist - except your own cite explicitly says they do.</blockquote>


UMMM Medical Bankruptcies do exist in Canada.</blockquote>


Cite? Proof?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top