FEOS wrote:
The bankruptcy myth has been debunked...repeatedly. Just more scare tactics used by one side to justify their agenda. No different than the other side using scare tactics to justify theirs.
What's been debunked? People become bankrupt from paying medical bills. It happens. The figures direct from the courts say it is the primary cause. Saying it's been debunked is pure folly.
A Harvard study by Dr Himmelstein states that 62% of bankruptcies in the US are healthcare related - when you look at the papers that supposedly debunk this paper (which is, I assume, what you are talking about), it's blatant they are completely mis-representing data with an agenda.
Here is Himmelstein's response to the paper that was published to counter his.
David Dranove and Michael Millenson seem determined to deny that financial fallout from illness pushes middle-class families into bankruptcy. Anxious to erase the headline that three-quarters of U.S. medical bankrupts had health insurance at the onset of their illnesses and the resulting spotlight on inadequate coverage and insurance cancellation practices, they ignore most of our data and misrepresent the rest. They dismiss families’ explanations of their difficulties and blame those ruined by illness for their own problems. However, the data from the bankruptcy courts are undeniable. Bankruptcies affect mainly middle-class, privately insured families, and about half are triggered, at least in part, by illnesses.
Read the papers and it becomes extremely obvious that Dranove and Millenson simply gloss over half the data, completely ignoring it - presumably because they have no answer to it. The way they ignore statements by the individuals and the court figures is also very telling about the accuracy of their "study".
Another thing silly articles like to try and use to "debunk" this paper is the total uninsured figures. The fact they haven't bothered to read the paper shows very much then, since most of the cases involve people with health insurance who have their policies revoked or are told they have inadequate coverage - which is another very central point to this debate.
But of course lots of stupid websites that don't read either paper like to post articles that claim it's all been debunked. I could publish a paper supposedly debunking something that there is mass media hysteria about and it would probably end up being cited in news articles of that calibre.
