It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
What we care for is that there is no need to be FORCED under another socialist doctrine to pay for anyone else.
Originally posted by LarryLove
Rather than mindless trips on Google to extract articles that don't relate to OP's problems in hand, could you begin to answer a few questions.
Originally posted by LarryLove
Are you happy with the status quo? If not, what changes would you like to see?
Originally posted by LarryLove
Should a patient be treated based on their condition and not level of income?
Originally posted by LarryLove
Do over 50 million Americans without insurance deserve alternate methods to attain cover?
Originally posted by LarryLove
A nationalised health care system is paid for through taxes. It isn't free. If you are happy to support a trillion-dollar defence budget through taxation, why object to paying for medical coverage the same way?
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 attrib-
utable 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.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx, xxx
Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 by Reuters
Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
by Maggie Fox
WASHINGTON - 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 on 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.
Bankruptcy specialists said the numbers seemed sound.
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.
The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records.
Food, water, shelter, and clothing are all more important than medical care.
Originally posted by blupblup
...
That's why the NHS was born.... It's called progression.
And I for one am proud that my country has this type of healthcare.
Originally posted by wayno
...
Yes, I am intentionally making a distinction between "civilized" countries and the US.
There are times when your "every man for himself" attitudes get to be a bit much.
NEW YORK (AP) — Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.
Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1% increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2%, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.
Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2% rise as stocks rose more than 10% on an inflation-adjusted basis.
"What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.
Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.
The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.
About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.
"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.
Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh and hey, I could keep on searching for more than this but it should sufice.
Canadians sent to U.S. for neonatal care
LISA PRIEST
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jul. 24, 2007 1:53AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Apr. 03, 2009 10:09AM EDT
Women with high-risk pregnancies in three provinces have been sent at taxpayers' expense to give birth in the United States, where fragile infants spend weeks to months in hospital neonatal intensive-care units.
Expectant mothers from British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have been sent to four U.S. states, a development some attribute to an increase in the number of premature births, a nursing shortage and a stretched health-care system.
This year, 26 mothers from B.C. have been sent to three hospitals in Washington State; nine patients remain there
today, according to Sarah Plank, spokeswoman for the B.C. Health Ministry.
In Ontario, 10 women with high-risk pregnancies were transferred to U.S. hospitals from April to the end of June, according to Kris Bailey, executive director of CritiCall, an emergency-referral service for physicians in that province. That is one patient more than the entire number Ontario transferred to the United States in fiscal 2006-07. In Alberta, four pregnant women were transferred to Montana this year.
Mothers sent across the border are typically those who have gone into labour before 32 weeks gestation, at which point the premature babies require the highest level of neonatal intensive care. With no beds available in their home province or nearby, expectant mothers are often sent by air ambulance to hospitals in Washington, Montana, Michigan and New York.
...
www.theglobeandmail.com...
If Canadians and people from all over the globe are sent to the U.S. for medical care it must mean all the socialised healthcare around the world are not perfect.
Ah, and one last thing, we have had socialised healthcare in the U.S. for a very long time... The hospitals where this socialised healthcare is practiced are called Veteran's Hospitals.
Substandard Conditions at VA Centers Noted
90% of More than 1,000 Problems Reported Are Routine, Officials Say
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007
A review by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 1,400 hospitals and other veterans care facilities released yesterday has turned up more than 1,000 reports of substandard conditions -- from leaky roofs and peeling paint to bug and bat infestations -- as well as a smaller number of potential threats to patient safety, such as suicide risks in psychiatric wards.
The investigation, ordered March 7 by VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, found problems such as rugs loaded with bacteria from patient "accidents," ceiling and floor tiles with asbestos that needs to be removed, as well as exposed pipes and other fixtures from which mental patients could hang themselves.
...
www.washingtonpost.com...
BTW, before you all go claimimng "it only happens in the U.S. socialised system"...
www.youtube.com...
Ths is what happens when the socialist system bankrupts a nation, but since in the U.S. we were not having this problem, yet, the socialist elites/feds had to bankrupt the U.S. some other way, including stealing over $13 trillion U.S. dollars, plus the socialised bailouts, and other socialist takeovers. When a president announces the governments of the U.S. and Canada are taking over a PRIVATE COMPANY that is socialism. Heck Chavez has been doing it for a long time now.edit on 30-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.