I refer those who are against a public option to the Al Franken video re: Medical bankruptcies in America vs. Nations with Public Health Care.

A few months ago, the Boston Globe published an editorial comment on health care. Specificially, it was in regards to Mass Health (one of the health care models Democrats have been using as a test stage for a national process). Proponents of health care in Massachusetts (which state did you really think Mass Health was in?), said it would be a HUGE burden on Joe Taxpayer. That the cost would rise dramatically, and bankrupt the Massachusetts goverment inside ten years. To add further, would simply be, to give additional evidence of thier tactic: FEAR. Yes, they were and still are, afraid. They are afraid not just which they dont understand. They are afraid those that learn of them, will vote for the other guy in the next election.

The editorial, said that, for the 2010 MA Budget, was pretty high. Billions of dollars to run everything from schools, police, road maintence....to health care (97% of the total MA residents have health care coverage). Yet, as it was pointed out, the total cost of Mass Health, was $88 million. The editor said this was 5/8ths of 1% of the total bill.

The Federal budget, for 2010, is $4.3 TRILLION dollars. This health care bill, is said to be $980 million. Any 'sane', 'rational', and 'wise' conservative (that eliminates about 97% of conservatives), in the audience, that could justify spending $3 Trillion dollars in six years, on a country outside of the USA, across an OCEAN, and literally almost on the other side of the planet? That is what has been spent, from 2003-2009 on Iraq. And what did we Americans get out of it, that is POSITIVE to us? Against, spending just under $1 trillion on AMERICA and AMERICANS, INSIDE, the USA. Giving upwards of 96% of Americans health care coverage, reduce the debt that we are in, lower the rate of medical bankruptcies we are currently experiencing, AND, make Americans healthy for ten years?

There isn't a sane, rational, or wise, conservative, that could raise a single justifiable answer as 'why not'. Those people, are on the side of getting health care for their fellow Americans. Because sometimes....expenses be damned! We hear from the mindless conservatives on a daily basis. They have not thought things through. We tried their methods, and their means, and it turned out to be our undoing. Right now, millions of our country men (and women...and children)....suffer. Now, we as Americans are taking responsibility for our actions. Righting a wrong that should have been dealt with a LONG time ago. Conservatives, have forgotten what it means to be an American.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.
For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/pro
duct_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf
He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".
If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?


[Krupo shakes head]

This is pretty dismal.

It's not cherry-picking to pick a well-defined topic and discuss it.

It's an absolute disgrace to take a topic of discussion and turn it into something completely different. Redefining the scope without informing others of your intent is akin to bringin a laser gatling gun to a fencing match.

Have you even for a moment considered that perhaps Canada has bankruptcy laws which may be easier for people to gain access to than the US, making it easier for them to wipe their slate clean after misfortune?

The topic at hand is regarding people who have to pay their hospital and doctor for treatment, can't, and go bankrupt.

If you go bankrupt in your personal life that is not a medical bankruptcy, that's just an ordinary bankruptcy.

So please stop twisting terms around, and encouraging other people's "junk science" - go Wiki "Fraser Institute" to note how it is, if anything, a clearinghouse for "junk science."

They're deliberately working on misleading people with your so-called study, and your twisting of the facts.

Once a public option looks like a reality, alot if not ALL, the insurance companies will start scrambling to be better in every concept. They'll have to treat their customers like customers, and not cattle or peons. They'll have to revamp how they do business, or be sent to the unemployment line.

Yes, republicans want less competition, but more capitalism. Sort of oxymoron. They hate pork spending, but enjoy health care industries donating funds to their re-election funds.

I think a public option would do alot of good, for improving our country's health care system. Maybe a few less medical bankruptcies, so Sen. Al Franken can go grill other industry screwballs on things that are not being handled correctly.

...Doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

In every country on Earth there are thousands of bankruptcies. Other nations do not offically list 'medical expenses' in a legal docment as the cause of their bankruptcy because of nationalization. However, those charges (which still exist) are in the taxes that went to supporting aforementioned medical systems and contributed to the person's bankruptcy. Person "X" still had medical expenses and had to pay all his life. What Franken does is confine his definition to ONLY include persons who filed for chapter 7 or chapter 13 (a specific legal action) with medical expenses as a factor. Well, that 'factor' contributed to the bankruptcies of persons in Germany too - but didn't get listed in an official legal document. It's nothing but semantic humbuggery.

Fewer U.S. citizens are going bankrupt than Canada (proven). That probably extends to Germay, France & Switzerland as well, but maybe not. Regardless, it is sophistry to claim make propogandistic emotional pleas for 'no one should go medically bankrupt' and claim it doesn't happen in other countries. Bull. It happens all the time. It just isn't listed in the documents because it got smooshed into the tax code.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

It's exactly what Democrats said. You just don't like it. Cowboy up, pardner, and stop running away from what your guys are saying. Democrats have openly stated they are going to have no choice but to ration health care based solely on economic motivations. Their legislation is being crafted to relect that. By design, their plan will treat old people as nothing but expenses to be written off the books ASAP, and young people as cash-cows who get no treatment but have to pay taxes to support the program. Those are their words. This is medical care as envisioned by liberal democrats...

But that means you--particularly you young healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. "If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and drugs for the last couple of years of your life. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

There is no such thing as 'free' care'. This is a neolib myth that only exists in the realm of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens. As I stated above, just because their bankruptcy costs were hidden away as 'taxes' instead of defined as 'medical costs' going to a medical provider doesn't mean they didn't go medically bankrupt. It is legalese. It is buearucratic legerdemain.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

No - the whole point of the Democrat vision of health care is so they can go to dinner parties and not have to get crap from other liberals about America not having a 'European' medical system. There are tons of better solutions than the specific policies of liberal democrats. They just don't want to try them. They don't even want to study them.

Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

Standard neolib ad hominem bilge. I served as a volunteer unpaid missionary. I donate a large percentage of my personal income to charities. I volunteer in the community to help people get jobs, find work, and train. I visit the sick & widows in my community frequently. And just because I disagree with a top-down socialist so-called 'solution' to a problem I therefore don't understand sacrifice? All your words prove is that you don't know jack about me, and that you are a very small-minded, simplistic, judgemental buffoon.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

All untrue, except possibly for the last sentence. Note that the Fraser Institute's study (and BTW, Fraser is a Canadian version of CATO), doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

It doesn't define "medical bankruptcy" at all, nor does it attempt to breakdown the causes of bankruptcy in any way.

The latest study from the American Journal of Medicine on this topic, at least attempts to do all of those things.

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

Liar liar, pants on fire. That's not what was said, dingus.

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

Ahh, I see. So you make up your own standard of "medical bankruptcy" that doesn't match that of any reasonable person, and declare Franken a moron or liar.

"Medical bankruptcy" is shorthand for "bankruptcy caused by medical costs." There's a huge amount of wiggle room about how much medical cost means that it "caused" the bankruptcy, but it's pretty straightforward to say that if no one pays out of pocket for medical treatment, it won't make them go bankrupt.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

Unfortunately, we're not even talking about setting up some sort of universal, no out of pocket system for the US. What we're talking about mostly is mandated insurance, which should make it easier for families to budget their health care costs. Most of why they cause bankruptcy here is that no one plans to have major medical problems, nor do they plan on having their coverage rescinded by their insurance company, nor do they plan on getting laid off and losing their benefits.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

For example, Mr. Franken is probably not including Canada in his list of 'zero bankruptcies'...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

I'm struck by the look of amused dismissal she gives throughout this, as if she finds it funny that Franken thinks medical bankruptcies are an issue worth talking about.

Actually it is the governments role to provide health care. It's the government's role to provide military defense services, fire protection services, police services, educational services and health services. These are all tied up with those life, liberty and pursuit of happiness things. For any of these if you rely on private enterprise to provide the service then inevitably a significant portion of the population goes unprotected.

88% of Americans are happy with their health care plans ... my ass! That's 88% of Americans who actually have health care plans. The major point of your current debate is how to get good health care to those who have none.

Since you like statistics try these
http://media.npr.org/programs/tmm/webdocs/american_journal_of_medicine-medical_bankruptcy.pdf

"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%."

Number of bankruptcies in Canada in 2007 caused by medical bills? Effectively zero.

>> ^blankfist:
Your hyperbolic example of a person choosing between bankruptcy and "life and limb" confuses morality with fear.

As many as 22,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance (PolitiFact
).

Medical bills are responsible for most bankruptcies in the US (American Journal of Medicine, via NYT).

I think it's safe to say that the people bankrupted by medical bills didn't do it with elective procedures. I don't know how many of those bankruptcies involved treatments that were life saving, but certainly you would concede that my overall description of our system was accurate: people sometimes have to choose between bankruptcy or death. I think that's a broken system.

Most of your anti-government rhetoric is based on the slippery slope fallacy. In this case, you're saying that if we give the government the power to, say, outlaw insurance companies from rejecting or rescinding coverage from people on the basis of their medical conditions, the next step is forced labor exercise camps, and curfews.

Which of us was using hyperbolic fear tactics again?

If all you've got is to feed me a line of bull about how healthcare reform will lead to totalitarian socialism, and that therefore medical bankruptcies are just the price of freedom...you aren't really adding anything to the debate.

However, if you have a cure for the problem that doesn't involve government, I'm all ears.

things aren't always what they seem... and while i'm all for a *good* national healthcare system in the us, i think this piece is deliberately trying to compare disparate aspects of us and non-us healthcare systems... to prove a preconceived point (that mccain is *completely* wrong)

for example, i'm an american who has lived in taiwan for over 10 years now -- i am covered by taiwan's national healthcare system here (through employment and taxation), and i must say that it sucks

when this piece interviews a taiwanese doctor and asks how many taiwanese suffer medical bankruptcy in a year, to which the doctor answers, 'none' i believe that the point is completely misleading...

taiwanese don't go bankrupt over medical bills because if they can't afford the secondary care or an expensive life-saving procedure... well, they die -- the attitude here is different, and sadly, many asian countries put a much lower value on life -- heart bypass, organ transplant, chemo, etc, are *not* covered by the national healthcare system -- non-affluent taiwanese just get the word from the doctor on how much such procedures will cost them, nod, and never return... literally

national healthcare visits are provided by swiping your medical id card at any doctor's office or hospital and paying the minimum nt$150 fee (about usd$5) plus any overage on the alloted prescription value per visit -- waiting times aren't much more than a few hours, but the concept of bedside manner is missing completely - a doctor will spend an average of 5-10 minutes per patient, and i've even had them never look up at me from their note-taking (just tell me the symptoms, quickly)

it gets worse, doctors and hospitals are reimbursed through the goverment plan *per card swipe* ... so in virtually every case the healthcare provider will only do so much before telling you to return the next day for another swipe, err examination (you can only swipe once per day), even if this means leaving you in pain or allowing your condition to worsen -- imho, this has to be in contravention of the hippocratic oath (do no harm... even if through inaction)

so why not just return every day for a new swipe and follow-up visit? well, people have to work, and it's extremely unlikely that a person will take a week's worth of half-days just to get something fully checked out (in the work-ethic environment here, it would be tantamount to resigning from your job)

a recent dental checkup of mine went like this...

*swipe*
-wait 1.5 hours
-sit in the chair
-dentist uses a vibrating water-pick to knock some tartar off the back of my teeth
-rinse
-i ask for a flouride treatment (standard in the us) and am told to return the next day
(all of this in less than 10 minutes)
-i return the following day and swipe again to get the flouride, and am told by the dentist that he thinks i may have a cavity
-i'm told to return for another swipe the next day for an x-ray and treatment of the cavity
-i can't ask for another half-day from my employer, so i wait till the weekend and return for the remainder of the treatment
*postscript - the filling fell out while eating sushi two weeks later

for these reasons, most taiwanese with a bit of money buy *private* health insurance plans so that they have a *second* swipecard to whip out and save themselves some hassle and/or a more serious problem due to the mindboggling indifference and inconvenience

keep in mind that my personal experience happened in the capital city, taipei, where many doctors are western-trained and speak english -- i can only shudder to think what healthcare is like in the more rural parts of the island

so again, think twice before accepting any of the glib avowals/disavowals of these international healthcare professionals - imho, it's often a case of comparing one's *good* apple to america's *poor* orange