Supreme Court Decisions

[sirkickyass]

Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.20 percent in the United States during 2006 and 0.27 percent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.30 percent in both 2006 and 2007. The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

https://american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth

So that was three, some other wholly unrelated thing.

So in a critical reading test, you do understand that this is not the same point you were making earlier right?

You've stated that personal bankruptcy rates in Canada are higher. Ok. That has nothing to do with what percentage of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses in either country. In fact the article you link to declares the medical bankruptcy problem to be a myth but then pivots to talking about bankruptcy rates generally, so it doesn't support the point you were originally trying to make at all.

In fact, if you go further into the article it states that 15% of Canadian bankruptcies are primarily attributable to "medical reasons (including uninsured expenses)." Estimates of the percentage of bankruptcies that are primarily the result of medical costs in the United States vary widely, but you have to really play hard and strict to get numbers that low for the United States. Most studies with reasonable definitions of attributability land somewhere between 45 and 60% (personally I agree that the Elizabeth Warren study is a bit high, but that's largely because of the states they selected for the study).

 

[PearlWatson]

There is already private-sector competition. No major market has just one health insurer, and very few small markets do.

The major free-market idea was to allow insurance across state lines.
Now we have it where the Jazz can only draft players from Utah.

 

[trigg3r]

So that was three, some other wholly unrelated thing.

So in a critical reading test, you do understand that this is not the same point you were making earlier right?

You've stated that personal bankruptcy rates in Canada are higher. Ok. That has nothing to do with what percentage of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses in either country. In fact the article you link to declares the medical bankruptcy problem to be a myth but then pivots to talking about bankruptcy rates generally, so it doesn't support the point you were originally trying to make at all.

In fact, if you go further into the article it states that 15% of Canadian bankruptcies are primarily attributable to "medical reasons (including uninsured expenses)." Estimates of the percentage of bankruptcies that are primarily the result of medical costs in the United States vary widely, but you have to really play hard and strict to get numbers that low for the United States. Most studies with reasonable definitions of attributability land somewhere between 45 and 60% (personally I agree that the Elizabeth Warren study is a bit high, but that's largely because of the states they selected for the study).

Did you take my advice and start a relationship with the Laker fan?

 

[sirkickyass]

Remember this?

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

Or this?

Like I said, obviously Roberts is down with making the victory pyrrhic. The argument that it is reasonably characterized as a tax largely seems to come from the idea of "if it involves a payment to the IRS as a penalty for non-compliance, it's probably a tax." Difficult to argue with that point, even if the "tax" is, in effect, an avoidable alternative payment.

 

[Stoked]

An interesting note on this is the states ability to opt out of the medicaid expansion. Not sure how I feel about that.

 

[sirkickyass]

An interesting note on this is the states ability to opt out of the medicaid expansion. Not sure how I feel about that.

That's the part of the decision that I understand the least. In effect, it seems to be saying that federal promises of medicaid funds are irrevocable in this instance. I haven't totally worked out this part of the decision yet.

 

[Stoked]

You act as though it is all voluntary, and that parents want to pay for their adult children's medical insurance with higher premiums, and that employees aren't going to drop insurance coverage altogether.

No I don't.

You speak for all parents? If my children are actively in college pusruing a career and not laying around on their asses I would have no problem paying that insurance.

Also from what I understand just becasue the ACA allows for children up to age 26 to be on their parents insurance it allows for it.

Stop trying to intentionally misrepresent what I said.

 

[TroutBum]

This pleases me greatly. Now, if all of you uninsured people will kindly line up at my office or call me so I can help you with your new policy, that would be dandy. 801-641-7641

<3,

Trout.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This pleases me greatly. Now, if all of you uninsured people will kindly line up at my office or call me so I can help you with your new policy, that would be dandy. 801-641-7641

<3,

Trout.

So I don't read up on these things in any great detail, but things I've heard mentioned is that this bill will eventually put health insurance companies out of business and it will be simply a gov't ran program. I take it that's false?

 

[PearlWatson]

So that was three, some other wholly unrelated thing.

So in a critical reading test, you do understand that this is not the same point you were making earlier right?

You've stated that personal bankruptcy rates in Canada are higher. Ok. That has nothing to do with what percentage of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses in either country. In fact the article you link to declares the medical bankruptcy problem to be a myth but then pivots to talking about bankruptcy rates generally, so it doesn't support the point you were originally trying to make at all.

In fact, if you go further into the article it states that 15% of Canadian bankruptcies are primarily attributable to "medical reasons (including uninsured expenses)." Estimates of the percentage of bankruptcies that are primarily the result of medical costs in the United States vary widely, but you have to really play hard and strict to get numbers that low for the United States. Most studies with reasonable definitions of attributability land somewhere between 45 and 60% (personally I agree that the Elizabeth Warren study is a bit high, but that's largely because of the states they selected for the study).

Close enough for government work. All personal bankruptcies is just more encompassing.

You left a critical bit off of your article quote.

Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

*The personal bankruptcy rate was actually higher in Canada in 2006 and 2007 (0.30 percent for both years) than in the United States (0.20 percent and .27 percent).
*Medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies -- medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.
*Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).
Non-medical expenditures comprise the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States; the inability to earn sufficient income to cover these costs -- not exposure to uninsured medical costs -- is the real explanation for almost all bankruptcies in either country.

https://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18175


So comparing all American citizen bankruptcies where it is one of several reasons to Canadian Senior bankruptcies where it is the primary reason we are only 2% off.
The point has been made. U.S. Medical bankruptcies are as mythical as Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage.

 

[PearlWatson]

No I don't.

You speak for all parents? If my children are actively in college pusruing a career and not laying around on their asses I would have no problem paying that insurance.

Also from what I understand just becasue the ACA allows for children up to age 26 to be on their parents insurance it allows for it.

Stop trying to intentionally misrepresent what I said.

College students were already part of insurance coverage in Utah...the 4 year type college not the 8 year type college.

The ACA doesn't "allow for it". It mandates it; it requires it to be covered whether parents want to or not, and this mandate obviously increases premiums (costs).

 

[Stoked]

College students were already part of insurance coverage in Utah...the 4 year type college not the 8 year type college.

The ACA doesn't "allow for it". It mandates it; it requires it to be covered whether parents want to or not, and this mandate obviously increases premiums (costs).

Can you show me where I ever stated that I think any of this should be "mandated"? Take your time...

Also what about states outside Utah. Do they have the option to cover adult children? Even outside college. Lets say one of my kids is struggling and i am not. I tell them I will pick up their health insurance to help them out...why not?