Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (6222)	2/2/2005 11:49:57 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361291

"and it never killed one person in the world." Nor did it cause 50% of all bankruptcies... -Study: Health costs spur bankruptcy Researchers say 50% of filing caused by medical bills; most who file are insured middle class. February 2, 2005: 6:05 AM EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said Wednesday. The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted. "Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study. "Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick. Health insurance offered little protection." The researchers got the permission of bankruptcy judges in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas to survey 931 people who filed for bankruptcy. "About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy," they wrote. "Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses. "Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote. Specialists concur Bankruptcy specialists said the numbers seemed sound. "From 1982 to 1989, I reviewed every bankruptcy petition filed in South Carolina, and during that period I came to the conclusion that there were two major causes of bankruptcy: medical bills and divorce," said George Cauthen, a lawyer at Columbia-based law firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. "Each accounted, roughly, for about a third of all individual filings in South Carolina." He said fewer than 1 percent of all bankruptcy filings were due to credit card debt. "That truly is a myth," Cauthen said in a telephone interview. Cauthen said he was not surprised to hear that so many of the bankrupt people in the study were middle-class. "Usually people who have something to protect file bankruptcy," he said. "The truly indigent -- people that we see on the street -- there is no relief that we can give them." Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard associate professor and physician who advocates for universal health coverage, said the study supported demands for health reform. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance," Woolhandler said in a statement. She said many employers and politicians were pressing for what she called "stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy." money.cnn.com

To: SiouxPal who wrote (6222)	2/2/2005 12:18:53 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361291

Reporters must be escorted by Republicrook commissars: smirkingchimp.com

To: SiouxPal who wrote (6222)	2/2/2005 2:12:39 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361291

Shouldnt let being a bushophobe get in the way of bipartisan approaches to problems whether foreign or domestic. My feeling is that on sunday democrats split apart. I read the NYTimes letters to the editor and most liberals praised the elections. You folks need to separate either opposition to the war or opposition to the way bush handled the post war pacification effort from the attempt of brave Iraqis to carve a federal and democratic future. Unfortunatlely some of the leadership of the dem part adopted the Michael Moore position and that led to Kerrys horrific performance on Russert, and the pelosi, boxer, reid hysterics about withdrawing from iraq immmediately. Chris Matthews in response to those dudes said "how could a democrat not be for democracy." I second that notion and support democrats looking for a progressive alternative to conservative bush and reactionary, nativist democrats. Personally i was for the war, and critical of the pacification efforts. If i had it to do all over again either i would not have gone to war or been better prepared for the post war. Given where we are now, i am for disengagement and a timetables for departure so we are less the focus of the insurgency. With us on the way out, tribal leaders and true nationalists (no baathists or jihadis allowed) can cut appropriate deals with shiaa and kurds who i think will be most welcoming. MIke