[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.
