Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study - page 2
Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study Source... Read More
Jun 6, '09Yep, certainly no left wing bias at harvard
Quote from blue note
Truth? More like truthiness by the health insurance lobby and conservatives!
Bottom of article: "The authors are grateful to America's Health Insurance Plans for supporting this research." And I am sure the gratitude is mutual. AHIP is a lobby group for the health insurance companies, which is working tirelessly to block any genuine health reform and things like a public plan that would break their monopoly over the health insurance market. Hardly an unbiased source!
This is simply the pdf file of the above, not a new article.
Dated July 16, 2007 and refers to a 2005 study, not the one referenced here. A quick look at the blog shows that it is a patently biased, right-wing blog writen by um....some random conservative dude in the military. Sorry, but I'm going to take the word of Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University researchers over that.
Jun 6, '09
Jun 6, '09http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...31/35851.shtml
Jun 6, '09Quote from CRNA2007Let's see, title of screed is "Harvard Still Hates America." Apparently, this is the author of "Harvard Hates America," published in 1978. In this article from 2005, he whines about how no one wants to publish his book two and a half years after he finished it. Maybe he should have tried contacting whoever publishes Bill O'Reilly's books. Maybe he did and the book isn't very good. Who knows. But really, a conservative right-winger whining that Harvard is liberal is hardly news, or an unbiased source.
Writen by Robert J. Ortiz, a member of Catholic Students' Association Pro-Life Committee and of Harvard Right To Life, obviously a conservative.
Titled "Military recruiters banned," from 2004! Since March 2006, a decision by the Supreme Court has ruled that law cannot ban military recruiters. The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, Harvard Law School Class of '76. Oh, the irony.
Point is, anecdotal examples written by conservatives do not support a simplistic blanket statement like "Harvard has a left-wing bias." Harvard is home to the Harvard Salient, a conservative student journal. Republicans, anti-abortion groups, etc. are free to associate, organize and operate on campus. Harvard is no more liberal than many other college campuses. In contrast, the conservative Liberty University sought fit to ban its student Democratic Club recently - I think Liberty University needs to change its name.
The only reason why this has gotten so off-topic is because you actually think a blog entry written by some random conservative, trumps a study by Harvard and Ohio University researchers! It's not even liberal vs. conservative really. As one of those liberal arugula-eating "intellectual elites," I find that sort of conservative anti-intellectualism pretty astounding.
Jun 6, '09I know numerous personal anecdotes of people going bankrupt in America because of long term conditions and my heart goes out for them. The Harvard research clearly sets out that these anecdotes are real and the effects are palpable. Of course, the health insurance companies and the lobbyist would try to negate the Harvard study because they do not want health care reform. Private companies are in it for the money and their loyalty lies within their pockets and stockholders and not to the people.
Jun 6, '09
Jun 6, '09Too bad that facts and evidence have a left wing bias.
Quote from CRNA2007Yep, certainly no left wing bias at harvard
Jun 6, '09Just want to know what y'all think.......
I have had the 'health insurance debate' with my mom several times - she doesn't believe that the 'gov't should be involved in healthcare.' However, she has excellent health ins thru my dad's employment.
Recently a member of her conservative christian church (the youth group pastors wife) had a baby. This 29 y.o. woman appears quite 'upper class soccer mom'vtype ,she has a BS in elementary ed but isn't working right now as she also has 3 y.o. twins. The twins were born premature (d/t her preeclampsia - she was hospitalized several wks before their birth) and in the NICU for weeks.
MY mom is all happy about it, saying the baby is a 'blessing from God' and bringing the family meals ect. I happen to know that all 3 births (and extensive hospital stays) were paid for by medicaid. Several other women in the church ( my mom's friends) who had babies recently get medicaid as well.
I confront my mom with this - asking "don't you think Shay is quite irresponsible having babies and expecting the govt to pay for them". She pretty much ignores me although I don't think she really knows what medicaid is anyway, nor does she care when we are talking about her friend.
IMHO, this is just an example of how the system isn't working. Even though Shay doesn't have to pay anything for her medical care - she probably could pay something if she 'chose' to work even part time in a job where she could make a good wage (our state pays teachers very well.) She made good $$ before having the babies and will if she goes back to work after they are older.
And Shay isn't someone i want to consider irresponsible - she really is a nice person and i wouldn't want to see her denied health care. It isn't her fault and a statistic I have seen recently is that 37% of all childbirths in America are paid for by medicaid anyway.
I had BCBS health ins when I had my DD and the premiums DOUBLED to $475/mo when I added my infant daughter to the policy on top of paying all the deductibles, copays, ect. I went back to work when my DD was 6 weeks old to pay for all of it. Looking back, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Maybe I should have just quit my job and got on medicaid.
Am I wrong to feel this way? The U.S. needs to figure out a better system - it makes perfect sense to cut out the middle man.
Jun 6, '09There isn't a lot to figure out. The U.S. has the worst health care system in the world among developed/industrialized countries. Every other country already figured it out for us. We just need to see which country does it best and adopt their system. France, England, Canada, take your pick! Frankly, we can't possibly do worse than we're doing now. The biggest roadblock seems to be the fact that insurance companies will go out of business. To me this isn't a problem. They SHOULD go out of business. The only ones who think this is a problem are the Rush Limbaugh's and Sarah Palin's and Joe-The-Plumbers who put business ahead of people.
America, it's time to grow up. It's time to stand up and give the middle-finger to for-profit insurance companies and the corporate apologists who lie to us and scare us into maintaining this beast of a system. It's time to give the middle-finger to the politicians who ignore the 75% of Americans who are ready for a change.
Enough is enough already! The time to get rid of this murder-by-spreadsheet is NOW. Single payer NOW. Universal health care NOW. Get rid of the for-profit insurance companies NOW.
Quote from hope3456Am I wrong to feel this way? The U.S. needs to figure out a better system - it makes perfect sense to cut out the middle man.Last edit by js408 on Jun 6, '09
Jun 6, '09Everyone will still be paying through the nose, one way or another, because of the expense of healthcare delivery, even without the insurance companies skimming off profits. I do agree that our system is unfair however, but a government run system won't create utopia.
Jun 6, '09Tell that to all of the other countries who are doing it right. Their people are not paying through the nose and they get better health care than Americans.
The U.S. spends more than any other country in the world as a percentage of GDP. Why are we then ranked 37th overall by the world health organization? Why isn't our health care the best? The numbers don't lie.
Our system isn't simply "unfair," our system is a criminal enterprise, murder-by-spreadsheet, and it needs to be stopped NOW.
Quote from FireStarterRNEveryone will still be paying through the nose, one way or another, because of the expense of healthcare delivery, even without the insurance companies skimming off profits. I do agree that our system is unfair however, but a government run system won't create utopia.
Jun 6, '09Quote from js408Absolutely. Taking the insurance companies out of the picture would go a long way towards bringing down costs. Think about it: the for-profit health insurance companies are not in the health care business. They are in the health care denial business. That is the only way they make money.The biggest roadblock seems to be the fact that insurance companies will go out of business. To me this isn't a problem. They SHOULD go out of business. The only ones who think this is a problem are the Rush Limbaugh's and Sarah Palin's and Joe-The-Plumbers who put business ahead of people.
I do agree that our system is unfair however, but a government run system won't create utopia.
Jun 6, '09Quote from hope3456Can you explain how a relatively well-off, married woman whose husband is employed qualifies for Medicaid?I happen to know that all 3 births (and extensive hospital stays) were paid for by medicaid. Several other women in the church ( my mom's friends) who had babies recently get medicaid as well.
Am I wrong to feel this way?
I realize that Medicaid is essentially a state-administered federal program and that qualifications and benefits vary from state to state. But I am not aware of any state that extends Medicaid benefits to someone who is well off simply because she is (voluntarily or otherwise) unemployed. That has not been the case in IL, MO, KS, NC, SC, PA or NE, all states in which I have lived and/or worked.
Perhaps your state is unusual in offering Medicaid benefits under these circumstances? If so, then your state lawmakers may need to be prompted to address the issue.
Providing state-funded health benefits to the truly needy is one thing. Enabling a family to ditch their private coverage in favor of tax paid benefits is inexcusable.