Obama's Great Fox Mistake

[OL FU]

Nothing to do with Fox news interview but seems like the next step after this passes is that some states will take some of the more aggregious provisions with respect to the consitution to the SCOTUS and CJ Roberts will give Obama the OL FU ( so to speak )

Amazing the way the right has changed their opinion on activist judges.

Now that is funny The federal government boardly increases rights to require individuals to participate in a commercial activity and you think negating that unconstitutional power would be activist

[OL FU]

I understand how insurance companies make their money. It is certainly to have premium exceed claims.

With respect to bankruptcies, since when was the purpose of insurance companies to pay 100% of someone's costs. Is that what the new bill is requiring?

Who said anything about paying 100%? I'm thinking more along the lines of dropping coverage on the insured after accepting premiums, stalling, that sort of thing. Last spring's disaster here was a real eye opener for many of the locals around here.

so you are saying that all of the bankruptcies are from dropped policies. It has nothing to do with people not being able to pay their share of the costs?

[houndawg]

Who said anything about paying 100%? I'm thinking more along the lines of dropping coverage on the insured after accepting premiums, stalling, that sort of thing. Last spring's disaster here was a real eye opener for many of the locals around here.

so you are saying that all of the bankruptcies are from dropped policies. It has nothing to do with people not being able to pay their share of the costs?

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that since half of bankruptcies today have a medical cause, the health care system we have isn't working very well at all, unless you're an executive for an insurance company.

[OL FU]

so you are saying that all of the bankruptcies are from dropped policies. It has nothing to do with people not being able to pay their share of the costs?

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that since half of bankruptcies today have a medical cause, the health care system we have isn't working very well at all, unless you're an executive for an insurance company.

That we can agree on ( the not working very well part) although I am sure we would disagree as to why

[Baldy]

so you are saying that all of the bankruptcies are from dropped policies. It has nothing to do with people not being able to pay their share of the costs?

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that since half of bankruptcies today have a medical cause, the health care system we have isn't working very well at all, unless you're an executive for an insurance company.

Sorry, but about 20% of bankruptcy filings have a medical debt of $1,000 or less, about 40% have a medical debt of $5,000 or less, and only about 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of $10,000 or more.

What these numbers show are:
1. Too many people believe that they aren't responsible for paying for their own healthcare.
2. "Medical caused" bankruptcies are way over stated. Thanks for adding to the problem, dawg.

[houndawg]

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that since half of bankruptcies today have a medical cause, the health care system we have isn't working very well at all, unless you're an executive for an insurance company.

Sorry, but about 20% of bankruptcy filings have a medical debt of $1,000 or less, about 40% have a medical debt of $5,000 or less, and only about 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of $10,000 or more.

What these numbers show are:
1. Too many people believe that they aren't responsible for paying for their own healthcare.
2. "Medical caused" bankruptcies are way over stated. Thanks for adding to the problem, dawg.

Sorry. http://www.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conten ... .w5.63/DC1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Abstract- in 2001, 1.458 million Americans filed 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 about 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses lead to bankruptcy, out of pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the beginning of the illness; 75.7% had insurance at the onset of the illness. Medical debtors were 42% more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class-insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

[Col Hogan]

Nothing to do with Fox news interview but seems like the next step after this passes is that some states will take some of the more aggregious provisions with respect to the consitution to the SCOTUS and CJ Roberts will give Obama the OL FU ( so to speak )

Amazing the way the right has changed their opinion on activist judges.

If a judge follows the law...that is not activism...

If the judge makes a ruling on how he/she feels the law should be...that is activism...

Has a ruling been made yet? Or did your knee just jerk involuntarily, 'dawg???

[houndawg]

Amazing the way the right has changed their opinion on activist judges.

Now that is funny The federal government boardly increases rights to require individuals to participate in a commercial activity and you think negating that unconstitutional power would be activist

Er, I was referring to the CFR ruling.

After initially hearing arguments on both sides of the issue in March, John Roberts asked the litigants to re-argue the case with a broader focus. Instead of only arguing whether federal election laws should have applied in this particular case, Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government's ability to limit corporate and union election spending. (From the Iowa Independent 1/21/10)

Nope, no "judicial activism" there. If a liberal judge had pulled that stunt this board would have melted down to the center of the Earth..

[OL FU]

Now that is funny The federal government boardly increases rights to require individuals to participate in a commercial activity and you think negating that unconstitutional power would be activist

Er, I was referring to the CFR ruling.

I was speaking to the inevitable challenges the new law will bring.

What is the CFR ruling (sorry not good with acronyns)

[houndawg]

Now that is funny The federal government boardly increases rights to require individuals to participate in a commercial activity and you think negating that unconstitutional power would be activist

Er, I was referring to the CFR ruling.

After initially hearing arguments on both sides of the issue in March, John Roberts asked the litigants to re-argue the case with a broader focus. Instead of only arguing whether federal election laws should have applied in this particular case, Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government's ability to limit corporate and union election spending. (From the Iowa Independent 1/21/10)

Nope, no "judicial activism" there. If a liberal judge had pulled that stunt this board would have melted down to the center of the Earth..

Campaign Finance Reform

[OL FU]

Er, I was referring to the CFR ruling.

After initially hearing arguments on both sides of the issue in March, John Roberts asked the litigants to re-argue the case with a broader focus. Instead of only arguing whether federal election laws should have applied in this particular case, Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government's ability to limit corporate and union election spending. (From the Iowa Independent 1/21/10)

Nope, no "judicial activism" there. If a liberal judge had pulled that stunt this board would have melted down to the center of the Earth..

Campaign Finance Reform

Oh you mean where the judges reaffirmed the following language

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,

.

Now I understand why I was confused by your comment since this had nothing to do with the health care law

To be honest with you I haven't given that case the attention that it deserves, so I don't know if it is the case here but reversing previous court's errors is not activism, it is correctivism I really don't know how it applies to this case

[AZGrizFan]

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that since half of bankruptcies today have a medical cause, the health care system we have isn't working very well at all, unless you're an executive for an insurance company.

That we can agree on ( the not working very well part) although I am sure we would disagree as to why

Do you have any kind of proof to back that statement up, dawg? Because in my line of work I see LOTS of people with BK's, and VERY few of them are medical related.

[native]

I understand how insurance companies make their money. It is certainly to have premium exceed claims.

With respect to bankruptcies, since when was the purpose of insurance companies to pay 100% of someone's costs. Is that what the new bill is requiring?

Who said anything about paying 100%? I'm thinking more along the lines of dropping coverage on the insured after accepting premiums, stalling, that sort of thing. Last spring's disaster here was a real eye opener for many of the locals around here.

You make a good point, dawg, but the Democrat cure in invariably worse than the disease.

[Baldy]

Sorry. http://www.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conten ... .w5.63/DC1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Abstract- in 2001, 1.458 million Americans filed 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 about 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses lead to bankruptcy, out of pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the beginning of the illness; 75.7% had insurance at the onset of the illness. Medical debtors were 42% more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class-insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

ERROR: 404 File not Found

Still doesn't take away from the fact that well over 60% of "medical bankruptcies" are for medical bill debts of less than $10,000.

[houndawg]

Sorry. http://www.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conten ... .w5.63/DC1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Abstract- in 2001, 1.458 million Americans filed 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 about 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses lead to bankruptcy, out of pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the beginning of the illness; 75.7% had insurance at the onset of the illness. Medical debtors were 42% more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class-insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

ERROR: 404 File not Found

Still doesn't take away from the fact that well over 60% of "medical bankruptcies" are for medical bill debts of less than $10,000.

The only thing that statistic proves is how little savings most Americans have. When you have no cushion and you're living paycheck to paycheck it doesn't take a very large medical problem to put you under.

[Wedgebuster]

What was that figure flying around here last week about the number of people in our country that don't have 10,000 saved up, 45%??

[AZGrizFan]

Sorry, but about 20% of bankruptcy filings have a medical debt of $1,000 or less, about 40% have a medical debt of $5,000 or less, and only about 13% of bankruptcy filings involve a medical debt of $10,000 or more.

What these numbers show are:
1. Too many people believe that they aren't responsible for paying for their own healthcare.
2. "Medical caused" bankruptcies are way over stated. Thanks for adding to the problem, dawg.

Sorry. http://www.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conten ... .w5.63/DC1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Abstract- in 2001, 1.458 million Americans filed 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 about 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses lead to bankruptcy, out of pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the beginning of the illness; 75.7% had insurance at the onset of the illness. Medical debtors were 42% more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class-insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

Which would mean that 50% had medical bills (out of pocket) of $12,000 or LESS and still couldn't handle them. That speaks WAY more to this population's tendency to NOT save, to live paycheck to paycheck (and WELL beyond their means) than a failure of the medical or insurance industries.

[AZGrizFan]

ERROR: 404 File not Found

Still doesn't take away from the fact that well over 60% of "medical bankruptcies" are for medical bill debts of less than $10,000.

The only thing that statistic proves is how little savings most Americans have. When you have no cushion and you're living paycheck to paycheck it doesn't take a very large medical problem to put you under.

So, instead of solving a SYMPTOM, lets solve the PROBLEM. Get people SAVING.

[native]

The only thing that statistic proves is how little savings most Americans have. When you have no cushion and you're living paycheck to paycheck it doesn't take a very large medical problem to put you under.

So, instead of solving a SYMPTOM, lets solve the PROBLEM. Get people SAVING.

Great idea! Could you please start a thread in the locker room to explain the special rules this year for Roth IRAs?

[AZGrizFan]

So, instead of solving a SYMPTOM, lets solve the PROBLEM. Get people SAVING.

Great idea! Could you please start a thread in the locker room to explain the special rules this year for Roth IRAs?

How about a money market savings account? Or a money market mutual fund?

It really ain't that complicated, chief.

[native]

Great idea! Could you please start a thread in the locker room to explain the special rules this year for Roth IRAs?

How about a money market savings account? Or a money market mutual fund?

It really ain't that complicated, chief.

But aren't there some special rules for 2010 that allow a once-in-a-lifetime rollover to a Roth for 2010 only?

[AZGrizFan]

How about a money market savings account? Or a money market mutual fund?

It really ain't that complicated, chief.

But aren't there some special rules for 2010 that allow a once-in-a-lifetime rollover to a Roth for 2010 only?

There are some special rules, but I couldn't tell you what they are.

[houndawg]

Sorry. http://www.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conten ... .w5.63/DC1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Abstract- in 2001, 1.458 million Americans filed 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 about 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses lead to bankruptcy, out of pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the beginning of the illness; 75.7% had insurance at the onset of the illness. Medical debtors were 42% more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class-insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.

Which would mean that 50% had medical bills (out of pocket) of $12,000 or LESS and still couldn't handle them. That speaks WAY more to this population's tendency to NOT save, to live paycheck to paycheck (and WELL beyond their means) than a failure of the medical or insurance industries.

No, it wouldn't mean that; you're confusing "average" with "median".

You're correct that saving isn't our thing, but saving isn't encouraged in the US; since the end of WW2 it has been consuming that is encouraged and facilitated by easy credit. More recently there is the fact of the shrinking middle class. People can't save, as opposed to won't save.

[Baldy]

People can't save, as opposed to won't save.

Please explain that rubbish.

[houndawg]

People can't save, as opposed to won't save.

Please explain that rubbish.

The good paying jobs have left, wages are low, the middle class is shrinking, most of the country is one bad illness away from financial ruin.