RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths

RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fellow -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/28/2011 7:06:40 PM)
quote: If you bothered to investigate why the bill was $16,000 you would understand that its cost transfers from underpaying segments of the population that you subsidize. Thanks to government regulation. I like this opinion. I think medical care needs to be either fully private or totally state run. The current hybrid system pushes up the cost. Similar phenomenon takes place in housing, education and some other areas (the government supports with subsidies naturally otherwise unaffordable price hikes). Currently the health care costs per person by the US government equals approximately total socialized health care cost by other developed nations.

kalikshama -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/28/2011 8:00:05 PM)
Back atcha: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/03/medical-bankrup/ There’s been a fair amount of academic back-biting about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered. Both papers were peer-reviewed. “It stinks to be uninsured. I don’t want to be quoted saying anything else,” Dranove says. “But there are correct studies, and incorrect studies. For academics, the validity of the research methods matters.” It should for the rest of us, too. Himmelstein’s referred me to a 2006 paper in which he replied to Dranove, whom he accuses of “several out and out errors.” Says Himmelstein: “They were paid by the insurance industry to make this critique… They were hired guns out to try and make a point, and used a variety of illegitimate techniques to make that point.” http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w84.full.pdf+html ABSTRACT: David Dranove and Michael Millenson seem determined to deny that financial fallout from illness pushes middle-class families into bankruptcy. Anxious to erase the headline that three-quarters of U.S. medical bankrupts had health insurance at the onset of their illnesses and the resulting spotlight on inadequate coverage and insurance cancellation practices, they ignore most of our data and misrepresent the rest. They dismiss families’ explanations of their difficulties and blame those ruined by illness for their own problems. However, the data from the bankruptcy courts are undeniable. Bankruptcies affect mainly middle-class, privately insured families, and about half are triggered, at least in part, by illnesses.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/28/2011 10:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: If you bothered to investigate why the bill was $16,000 you would understand that its cost transfers from underpaying segments of the population that you subsidize. Thanks to government regulation. I like this opinion. I think medical care needs to be either fully private or totally state run. The current hybrid system pushes up the cost. Similar phenomenon takes place in housing, education and some other areas (the government supports with subsidies naturally otherwise unaffordable price hikes). Currently the health care costs per person by the US government equals approximately total socialized health care cost by other developed nations. I cant think of any area the government gets involved in that doesnt push up the costs.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/28/2011 10:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Back atcha: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/03/medical-bankrup/ There’s been a fair amount of academic back-biting about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered. Both papers were peer-reviewed. “It stinks to be uninsured. I don’t want to be quoted saying anything else,” Dranove says. “But there are correct studies, and incorrect studies. For academics, the validity of the research methods matters.” It should for the rest of us, too. Himmelstein’s referred me to a 2006 paper in which he replied to Dranove, whom he accuses of “several out and out errors.” Says Himmelstein: “They were paid by the insurance industry to make this critique… They were hired guns out to try and make a point, and used a variety of illegitimate techniques to make that point.” http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w84.full.pdf+html ABSTRACT: David Dranove and Michael Millenson seem determined to deny that financial fallout from illness pushes middle-class families into bankruptcy. Anxious to erase the headline that three-quarters of U.S. medical bankrupts had health insurance at the onset of their illnesses and the resulting spotlight on inadequate coverage and insurance cancellation practices, they ignore most of our data and misrepresent the rest. They dismiss families’ explanations of their difficulties and blame those ruined by illness for their own problems. However, the data from the bankruptcy courts are undeniable. Bankruptcies affect mainly middle-class, privately insured families, and about half are triggered, at least in part, by illnesses. Dranove is far from the only critic of the Harvard groups methods. Every version has had difficulties getting past peer review and have been severely criticized by many organizations. And the abstract is silly. It says "They dismiss families' explantions for their difficulties" in rebuttal to Dranove, when that is precisely what the Harvard group did by ignoring the self identified reasons families gaver for their own bankruptcy. And the final sentence "half are triggered, at least in part" perpetuates the biggest flaw in the Harvard groups work. They dont bother with a multivariate analysis of the causes which even by casual inspection show that the "in part" is in fact a minor part in at least half of what they claim are "medical bankruptcies".

kalikshama -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 6:33:56 AM)
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w84.full.pdf+html For example, some bankrupt families who took out second mortgages to pay medical bills described their reason for filing as “to save our home.” Others cited “birth,” “death” or “car accident,” even when their other responses revealed unaffordable medical catastrophes such as premature deliveries, birth defects, spinal injuries, or expensive terminal illnesses. Some struggled with lawsuits from hospitals or from credit card and payday lenders to whom they turned to pay for medical care, describing their financial problems as “aggressive collection.” Because these families failed to use the specific term “illness or injury” to explain their bankruptcy filings, Dranove and Millenson simply exclude them from the “medical bankruptcy” category, thus greatly undercounting a serious problem. Second, their recalculation requires that debtors cite medical bills from providers (doctors and hospitals) as a major contributor to bankruptcy, to qualify as a medical bankruptcy. In their version, a debtor bankrupted by medication costs (but not saddled with hospital bills) would not qualify as medically bankrupt. As we stated in our paper, medication costs were the predominant out-of pocket expense for most patients with psychiatric disorders and for virtually all debtors with Medicare coverage. Additionally, in many cases, inability to afford home care led to financial ruin because a breadwinner had to take time off work to care for a sick family member. Dranove and Millenson’s definition misclassifies costs for medications and home care as “nonmedical.” In sum, we stand by our original estimate that 46.2– 54.5 percent of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by illness or medical bills.

mcbride -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 8:17:01 AM)
Always risky reading more than one of Wilbur's posts, because of the high probability of finding some claim so egregiously wrong that it demands a correction. But I did. Silly me. And there was a rant about bankruptcies being higher in Canada. "Canada not only includes medical bills in its bankruptcy code, but the rate of bankruptcy in in (sic) Canada was higher than in the US." Wilbur doesn't mention that he's quoting the Fraser Institute, which doesn't purport to do objective research, but rather, exists only to promote "free market solutions". Fraser's Institute's 2007 national study, which he's quoting, suggests that “we should expect to observe a lower rate of bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States, all else being equal. Yet the most recent data shows that the non-business bankruptcy rate in Canada is statistically the same as it is in the United States.” Donald Gutstein, with Vancouver's Georgia Straight, points out that our lads didn't use the most recent data, although it was available, because it would give them a much different result. The 2008 data show that the U.S. bankruptcy rate was higher than Canada’s. And that's because, as the Fraser Institute knows, all else isn't equal. "The U.S. revamped its bankruptcy law in 2005—the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act—making it more difficult for consumers to declare bankruptcy. In 2006, the first year used in the Fraser study, American bankruptcy rates plummeted. In the six years before the law came into effect, the Canadian rate averaged 3.8 per thousand population, while the average American rate was 6.7 bankruptcies per thousand—nearly 75 percent higher. In fact, 2006 and 2007 are the only two years in the past decade in which Canadian bankruptcy rates exceeded the American ones. And they are the only two used in the Fraser analysis." I spent two weeks in hospital over the last two months, and got great care. Total cost: zero. Time spent waiting for cheques for out-of-pocket: zero. Time spent dealing with insurance companies: zero. So it seems important to set the record straight.

tazzygirl -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 8:20:39 AM)
If healthcare is nationalized in Canada, what are the chances any bankruptcies are related to health care?

Lucylastic -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 8:28:32 AM)
only if you have procedures not covered by the province plan. In the last year I have had, three MRI's skull, pelvis and abdo 6 ultrasounds, twelve separate blood tests, two xrays, and a gastroscopy, and endoscopy a gyno, a oncologist, and the endo dood. Four days in the hospital, and was offered home help for the first week out of hospital. The only money I was out of pocket for was the painkillers from the pharmacy on my way out and for travelling expenses. While in the hospital I was in a semi private room, I didnt use the phone didnt want the tv, had airconditioning in the room. And all told it cost me.... ten bucks plus 15 for tylenol 3s and oh six pages of referral requests, four doctors, a pre op testing. no requests, no waits, no insurance , no claims, nothing. PS McBride it is so lovely to see you posting again:)

Nosathro -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 11:32:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Some of what she says is true, but there are a few things I like to point out. First off she is talking about what is called Major Medical Insurance. This is what most people have, in medical insurance. What I have seen, is most people go for the low monthly payment. However they fail to understand that there is also a deductable, the rule is low monthly payment, high deductable and vise versa. They don't realize that yes they are covered but there is going to be a large bill because of the deductable. Major medical is mostly accident/health, meaning your covered for accidents and general health issuses. Most policies do not cover things like Cancer and long term care. Most think of long term care as the skilled nursing facility you go to when your old and bed ridden. That is not so, it can mean a visitiing home nurse, long tern phyiscal therapy etc. As an insurance agent, I review the major medical policies as well as supplemental policies and why they need them. As to the Adminstrative cost, by California law and most other states, 80 cents of each dollar of medical insurance goes to treatment, Obama wants 85 cents. Why so much on Adminstrative costs? Ask the government, they has so many forms that have to be filled out, a admission packet at any hospital is about 3 to 5 inches thick on forms that the government is requires. Im not sure who the "she" is in your post, but wrt the bankruptcy issue the real problem is lack of disability coverage, not the medical bills themselves. And of course again wrt to bankruptcy the most important feature of any health policy is the maximum annual out of pocket expense. Whether thats in deductibles or co-pays is largely irrelevant. (and as you point out wrt to deductibles, the lower the OOP, the higher the premium). FYI the "Maximum annual out of pocket expense" means what you pay in the deductible and out of pocket expense, such as the co-payment. the monthly premium must still be paid.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Some of what she says is true, but there are a few things I like to point out. First off she is talking about what is called Major Medical Insurance. This is what most people have, in medical insurance. What I have seen, is most people go for the low monthly payment. However they fail to understand that there is also a deductable, the rule is low monthly payment, high deductable and vise versa. They don't realize that yes they are covered but there is going to be a large bill because of the deductable. Major medical is mostly accident/health, meaning your covered for accidents and general health issuses. Most policies do not cover things like Cancer and long term care. Most think of long term care as the skilled nursing facility you go to when your old and bed ridden. That is not so, it can mean a visitiing home nurse, long tern phyiscal therapy etc. As an insurance agent, I review the major medical policies as well as supplemental policies and why they need them. As to the Adminstrative cost, by California law and most other states, 80 cents of each dollar of medical insurance goes to treatment, Obama wants 85 cents. Why so much on Adminstrative costs? Ask the government, they has so many forms that have to be filled out, a admission packet at any hospital is about 3 to 5 inches thick on forms that the government is requires. Im not sure who the "she" is in your post, but wrt the bankruptcy issue the real problem is lack of disability coverage, not the medical bills themselves. And of course again wrt to bankruptcy the most important feature of any health policy is the maximum annual out of pocket expense. Whether thats in deductibles or co-pays is largely irrelevant. (and as you point out wrt to deductibles, the lower the OOP, the higher the premium). FYI the "Maximum annual out of pocket expense" means what you pay in the deductible and out of pocket expense, such as the co-payment. the monthly premium must still be paid. Uhhh, FYI, thats what I said.

Masta808 -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:33:53 PM)
This is more proof that the college / university in America is liberal and needs to de-funded and destroyed. Who cares what she has to say. The TRUTH is that the Government SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS. Healthcare like everything else in life should be a capitalist endeavor. If you cant afford health care, TOO BAD. If God wanted you to live or have a healthy life he would have made you rich. For those that dont believe in God then its your own damn fault you cant pay for your on medical cost. So what it wasnt your fault those are excuses like its hereditary, caused by a criminal act, happened at work, got into accident, airborne virus, biological attack, and so forth. Stop making excuses and do something about it like start working more so you can start paying for your own healthcare. If something happens between that time before you can afford well TOO FUCKING BAD, thats life its unfair because we made it unfair. But that doesnt give you the right to make it fair.

Moonhead -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Masta808 The TRUTH is that the Government SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS. Then what the fuck is it there for?

Masta808 -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:42:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Masta808 The TRUTH is that the Government SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS. Then what the fuck is it there for? Making sure the Free Market is running and too make sure the rules are written in favor of the powerful and rich while keeping the rest thinking they are free, happy, and successful.

Moonhead -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:44:15 PM)
The free market can do that itself. If you want to live in Libertarian dystopia, government is redundant.

popeye1250 -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Who the fuck is Professor Warren and why should we care? Especially with a meaningless statistic like that standing out? She's someone who will more than Likely be a US Senator in approximately 11 months. And unlike you, she has no vested interest in Big Healthcare. Skipper, Elizabeth Warren is the type of person that the Three Stooges used to throw pies at. "Well I never!"

Hillwilliam -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 1:51:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Who the fuck is Professor Warren and why should we care? Especially with a meaningless statistic like that standing out? She's someone who will more than Likely be a US Senator in approximately 11 months. And unlike you, she has no vested interest in Big Healthcare. Skipper, Elizabeth Warren is the type of person that the Three Stooges used to throw pies at. "Well I never!" So, DEFINITELY Senatorial material then.

MrRodgers -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 2:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: If you bothered to investigate why the bill was $16,000 you would understand that its cost transfers from underpaying segments of the population that you subsidize. Thanks to government regulation. I like this opinion. I think medical care needs to be either fully private or totally state run. The current hybrid system pushes up the cost. Similar phenomenon takes place in housing, education and some other areas (the government supports with subsidies naturally otherwise unaffordable price hikes). Currently the health care costs per person by the US government equals approximately total socialized health care cost by other developed nations. I cant think of any area the government gets involved in that doesnt push up the costs. ...and that's because private for-profit interests...see Uncle Sam coming a mile away. When [it] arrives, it's a cash cow. It's a cash cow for farmers, a cash cow for the military industrial complex. and a cash cow at tax time for dozens of corporations. Gets expensive when socializing the capitalist.

MrRodgers -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 2:07:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The free market can do that itself. If you want to live in Libertarian dystopia, government is redundant. The free market just might do that. Too bad the US does not have a free market and has not for over 100 years. Health care in Germany is govt.-run privately delivered, free market system at 1/2 our costs, with over 200 private health insurance companies...covering every citizen. Just imagine, how can they 'live' like that and 3-4 years longer than we do ? God...who would want to live in Germany ?

popeye1250 -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 2:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Who the fuck is Professor Warren and why should we care? Especially with a meaningless statistic like that standing out? She's someone who will more than Likely be a US Senator in approximately 11 months. And unlike you, she has no vested interest in Big Healthcare. Skipper, Elizabeth Warren is the type of person that the Three Stooges used to throw pies at. "Well I never!" So, DEFINITELY Senatorial material then. Hill, that's exactly the type of person we don't need in the senate. It's full of "Elizabeth Warrens" now and look at the mess they've made! Same thing in the house. The state of Massachusetts has gotten screwed with the "senators" they've had.

tweakabelle -> RE: Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths (11/29/2011 3:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Masta808 The TRUTH is that the Government SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS. Then what the fuck is it there for? Congratulations Moonie, you may have asked the most incisive question in this debate. Further, if our 'democratic' Governments don't exist to take care of the interests of their citizens (of which healthcare is, by any standard, a primary interest), then whose interests do they exist to serve? In this context (US healthcare), is there any answer other than the vested interests of the privatised US healthcare industry? So are opponents of 'socialised' (sic) medicine really saying that government exists to promote the interests of big healthcare? This seems the logical (and rather silly) outcome of their position. It also dovetails neatly with the Right's permanent agenda of advancing the interests of the 1% over the 99%.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875