Max Baucus (D) Says He Fears Obamacare Is Headed For 'Huge Train Wreck'

[mrplunkey]

This is not true at all. Most uninsured people are those who believe they don't need it , hence they don't pay for it. This is mostly younger people and college students who don't make the money to afford and don't have the health problems to need insurance.

Once again the people who are filing bankruptcy due to medical problems are people WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com


Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."

And in today's lesson, we learn that uninsurable and uninsured are two distinctly different words.

 

[gjohnson5]

And in today's lesson, we learn that uninsurable and uninsured are two distinctly different words.

Ok I misread that
But my point still stands. The people who filed bankrupcy HAD INSURANCE. So they couldn't have been in your unisurable pool. In group insurance , you either cover the group or you deny the entire group

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

This country's greater populace is nowhere near educated/disciplined enough for socialized medicine to work. We'll probably end up having to learn the hard way.

 

[mrplunkey]

Ok I misread that
But my point still stands. The people who filed bankrupcy HAD INSURANCE. So they couldn't have been in your unisurable pool. In group insurance , you either cover the group or you deny the entire group

You keep coming back to the bankruptcy issue.

The #2 reason for bankruptcy is job loss.

Should we nationalize labor as well? If the government made a pool of labor large enough and assigned everyone a job, then no one would have to face bankruptcy just because they didn't have a job. We could have 0% unemployment if we made the pool large enough because the people who are unemployable or didn't want employment could derive their income from the people who work exceptionally well.

The #4 reason is divorce.

Should we nationalize marriage as well? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Everyone here knows someone who entered into a doomed marriage that never had a chance. I bet if we did a government version of e-Harmony to match people and then made divorce illegal, we'd have fewer bankruptcies through divorce.

If bankruptcy is our measuring stick, let's address all facets of it.

 

[gjohnson5]

You keep coming back to the bankruptcy issue.

The #2 reason for bankruptcy is job loss.

Should we nationalize labor as well?

You say that like the government doesn't fund job training programs or employ people. They clearly do both. The gov't also offers contracts to private companies

The #4 reason is divorce.

Should we nationalize marriage as well?

Marriage laws are applicable in all 50 states.

You're reaching fairly hard with this post. Neither of the examples represent a direct cost to the individual. One does not have to get married or get into debt which require them to continue working. Yes , if someone owns a home and then had trouble finding a job , then they may have to file. The buying of a home or a car is a personal choice. Getting sick or in a car wreck is not a choice.

 

[mrplunkey]

You say that like the government doesn't fund job training programs or employ people. They clearly do both. The gov't also offers contracts to private companies

That's right. The government is already involved in employment -- yet almost 8% of Americans are unemployed and another 10% have given up on employment.

Why not just go all the way? If we need single payer health care, we need single-employer work as well. Don't ignore bankruptcy reason #2 yet restructure 1/6 of the US economy over bankruptcy reason #1. Why isn't gainful employment a right?

You're willing to let a family starve and live in squalor yet the moment they get sick, we whisk them to the hospital? Generational poverty is A-ok by you, but the sniffles aren't?

 

[Mr. dB]

This country's greater populace is nowhere near educated/disciplined enough for socialized medicine to work. We'll probably end up having to learn the hard way.

How so? I mean, how will we see consequences of socialized medicine, since we don't have it?

 

[gjohnson5]

That's right. The government is already involved in employment -- yet almost 8% of Americans are unemployed and another 10% have given up on employment.

Why not just go all the way? If we need single payer health care, we need single-employer work as well. Don't ignore bankruptcy reason #2 yet restructure 1/6 of the US economy over bankruptcy reason #1. Why isn't gainful employment a right?

You're willing to let a family starve and live in squalor yet the moment they get sick, we whisk them to the hospital? Generational poverty is A-ok by you, but the sniffles aren't?

Noone said anything about the current employment situation being ok. Infact it not even part of this discussion. The thread was about Obamacare being a mess, not employment. When did we start spending as much on SBA loans and business subsidies as we do medical costs both medicaid or emergency room expenses? When did those costs outpace GDP growth and the consumer price index?

Right now it's not and is not pertinent to this thread

 

[gjohnson5]

That's right. The government is already involved in employment -- yet almost 8% of Americans are unemployed and another 10% have given up on employment.

But I will agree with you that the role of government needs more clear definition and in many cases it needs to be trimmed. The role of government needs to fit civil liberties as well as budget concerns. However to avoid the medical inflation issue just because some don't like the word socialism isn't a good reason. I definitely don't think it's a good reason to avoid because a politician was for it before he was against it....

 

[mrplunkey]

Noone said anything about the current employment situation being ok. Infact it not even part of this discussion. The thread was about Obamacare being a mess, not employment. When did we start spending as much on SBA loans and business subsidies as we do medical costs both medicaid or emergency room expenses? When did those costs outpace GDP growth and the consumer price index?

Right now it's not and is not pertinent to this thread

Of course it's pertinent. I'm tired of all these lukewarm liberals whining over health care being a right. What gives them the ability to decide health care is a right, but employment, shelter, a college education (including masters and Ph.D.s), food and even entertainment aren't rights?

Your call to action was around health care causing bankruptcies, now you've changed the measuring stick to "outpace GPD growth and the consumer price index". Want to play that game? Ok, then I'll choose college education. They've outpaced both the GDP and CPI horribly. Let's nationalize 100% of universities and guarantee every American who wants it free education -- even J.D., Ph.D., masters, M.D. -- the works. Why should these elite, expensive, degrees be available only to the wealthy? And why should the scholarships even be merit or ability-based?

We already know that education is a huge indicator over overall health. It's right up there with income and social status. So why provide health care for free and deny someone the key indicators of health including income (a good job) and education?