Political Discussion

[OhioFiler]

Well, as my screen name implies, I am in school (although I am now working full time as well), and I can assure you that I am very much facing the "real" world. I think many college students today are getting more exposed to economic realities as their parents struggle to finance their educations and they are forced to make tough choices as to what school they are going to go to, and how to pay for it.

I certainly don't see you in the same way I might see a 18 year old college freshman.

My point was meant to imply that it's just as plausible to effect a high school student's understanding of economics as it is a college student's. I believe economics must be taught to our youngsters.

[OhioFiler]

Of course there is no way of knowing what percentage of people filing bankruptcies, are posting regularly on bkforum. My guess is that it is a statistically insignificant number.

I never indicated it was statistically significant but did mention anecdotal significance. If you read the original study claiming 54% of bankruptcies are medically related the concept of statistics was ignored to meet the agenda of the publishers.

[OhioFiler]

I agree with you that the Constitution was always meant to be a living, breathable document that would grow and change as our country grew and changed. Interpreting the Constitution literally is impossible anyway, since it was written by men from a completely different historical context. We cannot see the world the way they saw it, as our historical context not the same as theirs.

I am a closet post-modernist, and like to trot out those views from time to time.

This statement is beyond my ability to understand. Of course I'm just a simple conservative not a nuanced progressive.

Why did the framers even bother to write the Constitution if it was intended to me changed by radical legislators, Marxist presidents or activist judges? I believe the framers actually created a mechanism for altering the Constitution via amendment requiring approval of 2/3's of the states. Our Constitution is not a livable breathable document.

[DeadManCrawling]

That debunking was applicable to a different study from 2001.

The research I refer to was published in August 2009.

If you have something that debunks this new research study, I would be interested to see it.

Of course, any study can turn on the wording of a phrase or even a single word.

But to say that a 2005 white paper debunks one earlier study, therefore it debunks ALL future studies is a bit of a stretch.

If we followed the path of cause and effect using your logic, then my own BK wasn't even a result of crime. We would then have to go back even further. Perhaps it was a matter of birth control. If my parents had not conceived me, I would no be filing. Ergo, it is a birth control issue?

That sort of logic breaks down quickly when applied in the real world, and from my perspective, it doesn't matter so much what caused me to file, but rather that I had to file at all.

That myth has been debunked. Read here: Interesting reading

I understand your bk is medically related but the truth is it is more criminally related than medically related. The problems you've suffered are not the result of any medical condition. I find what was done to you to be deplorable and wish only the best for you.

I can also use bkforum for anecdotal evidence that medical expenses are not the cause of anywhere near 60% of bankruptcies. Look around. Very few posters here mention their medical debts when asking for information.

[JRScott]

DMC, you are correct. I still believe that if we could shut the talk radio voices up, and resort back to real news where the news is told honestly, not someone tell you what to think we would all be better off. Growing up I was raised on politics and voices did raise from time to time over issues. But people never made things up back then, they told it like it was. Honestly, the last 10-15 yars have grown more and more stressful with all the news hype. I enjoy reading posts from all view points until they move in to the are of not being factual or honest, or resort to name calling. The trigger is always someone who take a broad sweep at liberals or right-wing-nuts and a poster feels attack by that post so they get more personal and so it continues. The person who took the broad sweep can not understand, until a broad sweep is taken at them then they respond the same way. We need to go back to being honest, and to doing some research of our news sources before we start blaming one party of the other. Easy for me to say since I think both parties are on the wrong path.. lol... I have enjoyed your thread, thanks for starting it!

When we start to silence any voice we become less free. That's why we have a 1st Amendment

[DeadManCrawling]

I agree JR. I think they meant we may be able to have a real discussion if we were all wise enough to ignore those who profit from turmoil, at least long enough to have a reasonable debate.

That, however, is unlikely to say the least.

[LimpDisc]

I don't think it's about shutting up the talking heads on TV or radio. It's more about the American eloctorate being to lazy (?) to educate themselves on the issues. It doesn't matter who anyone votes for during the elections, just study the candidates and vote for whichever one you think is best. By just doing that I think we will end up with better people in office. I have friends & family that strickly vote according to party affiliation. That bothers me.

[OhioFiler]

That debunking was applicable to a different study from 2001.

The research I refer to was published in August 2009.

If you have something that debunks this new research study, I would be interested to see it.

Of course, any study can turn on the wording of a phrase or even a single word.

But to say that a 2005 white paper debunks one earlier study, therefore it debunks ALL future studies is a bit of a stretch.

If we followed the path of cause and effect using your logic, then my own BK wasn't even a result of crime. We would then have to go back even further. Perhaps it was a matter of birth control. If my parents had not conceived me, I would no be filing. Ergo, it is a birth control issue?

That sort of logic breaks down quickly when applied in the real world, and from my perspective, it doesn't matter so much what caused me to file, but rather that I had to file at all.

Well if we believe the 2005 report that the original "study" only showed 17% were medical related if would take a hugely significant change in health care insurance, medical issues or medical costs to justify a increase from 17% to 60% of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. I find it implausible.

I disagree on your analysis of my logic. You have to exist as an adult citizen of the USA to be considered part of the data. As such, there is really only one event that led you to bankruptcy. I would still however consider your situation as a medical cause for filing for purposes of this discussion. My point of using your assault as an example was to indicate how unique your situation is and should not really be considered in the data when discussing medical related bankruptcies.

[HRx]

Was a great speech...a refreshing change from the eight years of babbling lies from George W. Bush.

[Flamingo]

That myth has been debunked. Read here: Interesting reading

I understand your bk is medically related but the truth is it is more criminally related than medically related. The problems you've suffered are not the result of any medical condition. I find what was done to you to be deplorable and wish only the best for you.

I can also use bkforum for anecdotal evidence that medical expenses are not the cause of anywhere near 60% of bankruptcies. Look around. Very few posters here mention their medical debts when asking for information.

All bankruptcies are "debt" related - you cannot file bankruptcy without debt. All it takes is a serious medical event to occur and it can throw anyone into bankruptcy without good medical insurance, lots of savings or if they lose their job at the same time. Then there are those that just run up debt because they can't stop buying things and then the job loss hits or the hours are cut and they wonder why they have to file. Debt causes bankruptcy; in most circumstances, most of us know that going crazy with credit cards, loans, overspending on houses, etc. put us in the spot to file as soon as the job loss hit or the hours cut. If we did not have the debt when the job loss hit, we would not have had to file. Those that file due to high medical bills are hit with debt beyond their control and they did not go out and charge up operations for the heck of it on their Visa and Mastercard. All it takes is a heart attack or other major medical event to run up all sorts of bills not covered by insurance. There were recent programs on some of the major news channels on medical costs and filing bankruptcy and the figure was quoted at around 50% (bankruptcies filed due to health related bills). Also, either Newsweek or Time did a fairly recent article on the same quoting about the same average (50%).

[banca rotta]

Was a great speech...a refreshing change from the eight years of babbling lies from George W. Bush.

I wouldn't so much describe it as a "great speech" or "refreshing change", but at least we no longer have bush's babbling lies.

Now we will have a few more years of obama's babbling lies. I say a few years because unless he cures aids, cancer and finds bin laden as well as invent a car that gets 100mpg all in the same day there is no chance in hell Americans will welcome him back with open arms.

Whether or not all these problems are his fault he still will get blamed and won't be welcome back.

His policies are destroying the economy and even if he does the right thing by balancing the budget that will still cause a lot of pain and suffering to the many. He is a one term president for certain.

[WhatMoney]

Flamingo, this report basically says the same thing you have found, that debt causes BK and medical related causes can be the final trigger. It is the same report referenced here by DMC, and which I mentioned back in December:

This is what the 2009 American Journal of Medicine Report, with researchers from Harvard/Cambridge hospitals, Harvard law School, and Ohio University, concluded in their 2009 report. I suggest you all read the actual report pdf listed below to understand their methodology.

Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study
David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD, Elizabeth Warren, JD, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH
Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass; Department of Sociology, Ohio University,
Athens; and Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.

BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of
all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and
bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court
records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated
reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: 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%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

CONCLUSIONS:
Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.
● 62.1% of all bankruptcies have a medical related cause.
● Most medical debtors were well educated and middle class; three quarters had health insurance.
● The share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 50% between 2001 and 2007.

http://download.journals.elsevierhea...4309004045.pdf

The 2005 report, sponsored by the insurance industry, which attempted to debunk an older 2001 report, was a clever political parsing job of what defines a medical bankruptcy, written to justify the change in bankruptcy laws. They basically reduced the definition of what a medical BK is until they got the numbers low enough for political purposes. Then they narrowed it again by taking the product of two percentages from different questions to reach the 17% figure. Poor analysis, politically motivated, and paid by the insurance industry.

The new 2009 report clearly defines who is included in the 62% filing for medical related bankruptcy:

*Bankruptcies meeting at least one of the following criteria: illness, injury or medical bills listed as specific reason for filing OR uncovered medical bills >$5000 or >10% of annual family income OR, lost >=2 weeks of work-related income due to illness/injury, OR depleted home equity to pay medical bills.

[WhatMoney]

DMC, you are correct. I still believe that if we could shut the talk radio voices up, and resort back to real news where the news is told honestly, not someone tell you what to think we would all be better off. Growing up I was raised on politics and voices did raise from time to time over issues. But people never made things up back then, they told it like it was. Honestly, the last 10-15 yars have grown more and more stressful with all the news hype.

Well the conservatives won't like being told to shut up, but I understand what you mean. At one time there was the FCC Fairness Doctrine for radio and television:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

But in 1989 Bush got rid of FD entirely, and now we have national talk radio networks owned by ultra right wingers who provide a steady diet of right wing talk (often hate) radio nearly 24/7. There is no opposition, no counterpoints in these angry diatribes of lies and distortions every day. It's no wonder why their typical audience, white angry working class men, are so riled up all the time. Or why the country is so polarized. Just look at this topic and you see that in spades.

Before right wing radio was allowed to exist in it's present form, and before the internet, we had this interesting media know as newsprint. A moderate newspaper serving the community had editorial pages. On one side would be one side of an argument, and right next to it the opposing view. Readers could see both sides of an argument. Outright lies were edited out by the publisher. The public had a news source that provided balanced and truthful information. Democracy worked much better back then.

Now it is one sided news and the ability for each to self select only what they want to hear, the reinforcement of biases with no real understanding of an issue. These same single sided folks are now electing politicians, so we get more extremists ending up in Congress. In fact the Republican party has no center anymore. A party of officials elected by tea-baggers and Limbaugh/Coulter/Beck/Savage/Levin listeners results in what we have today. No bipartisanship, no cooperation, only stubborn extremist positions by politicians who must obey their one-sided information source voters.

It's a sad situation for the country when honest balanced information is no longer required for the electorate. Self selection does not work - it only drives one further to the right or left. Some have said a democracy cannot exist without a balanced and informed public. We are seeing that now.

PS - The conservatives are violently opposed to bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Why do you suppose that is?
.

[WhatMoney]

BTW, it was Reagan's FCC who dumped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, not 1989.

[DeadManCrawling]

OF,

Thanks for the ongoing and civil discussion.

There may be a matter that has been confused.

I am NOT referring to the older study from 2001. I concede there may have been words or phrases, or interpretations that were lax or even distorted.

I AM referring to this new study from 2009. Presumably these researchers, since they are studying the same field, would have made corrections based on earlier errors.

If this new study is correct, and the numbers are 60%, we are in dire need of changes in BK law, medical insurance, or both.

I know personal experiences do not matter in the scope of statistical research, but I can say I personally do know a dozen people who have filed BK. Among them, the 60% number is fairly accurate.

Truly, I am not trying to antagonize you or anyone. I would ask that, if you have it, you would post or share with me references that are recent and refute this idea that medical debts are a major factor in bk.

I have not yet made up my mind on the issue, but you can see I am leaning. I would hate to lean the wrong way only to find out later that I am mistaken.

I am sure you would agree, as would any reasonable person. I would like to know the truth. Since it appears insurance reform is dead, we should all come to the next election armed with the best knowledge.

Best to you,

-dmc

Well if we believe the 2005 report that the original "study" only showed 17% were medical related if would take a hugely significant change in health care insurance, medical issues or medical costs to justify a increase from 17% to 60% of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. I find it implausible.

I disagree on your analysis of my logic. You have to exist as an adult citizen of the USA to be considered part of the data. As such, there is really only one event that led you to bankruptcy. I would still however consider your situation as a medical cause for filing for purposes of this discussion. My point of using your assault as an example was to indicate how unique your situation is and should not really be considered in the data when discussing medical related bankruptcies.