People are going bankrupt because you think they're overweight? There's a lot of reasons people are going bankrupt, and healthcare is a big one, and overweight people tend to have more health problems, but this still struck me as a completely asinine evaluation. Try selling that to all the "not overweight" people that have been abused by the insurance/healthcare tandem until they no longer had anything to give. You pay and pay and pay all your life to these insurance companies, then the healthcare system overcharges for everything while the pharmaceutical companies lobby millions/billions to keep favor with legislators, and when someone gets sick, what's covered and not covered is often a joke, and that's if they are even honest about it, because while caring for people is their business, their bottom line comes first. Some might argue that's a necessity, but some radical changes need to be implemented if that's the case. Obesity is a factor in healthcare costs, a big one, but don't try to tell me that it's the number one reason people are going bankrupt due to health related causes. I would propose that the insurance industry and the healthcare industry have been allowed to become too greedy at joe public's expense, and when joe public needs help, he often gets spit on as they reach past him to collect their profits instead of lending a hand.
Hey one thing Refman and I have in common is that. I must add that I, too, counsel people during a very tough time in their life and from my perspective after thousands of cases, many people who have lost all their money are too poor to file for bankruptcy and this was true even prior to reform. Many of these folks were completely wiped out by their health problems either because they paid all their money for health care when they were uninsured or because they lost their job when they became ill and could not work.
Consumer spending is not the catalyst. Technology boom = more consumers spending/buying services/products = more liquidity in market. At the end of the day, its the Fed that decides the rates, whatever their (ir)rational reasons are based off of....it certainly isn't purely based off the free market.
The fact that overall saving is going up doesn't prove that poor people have had the capability to save more all along. Some people are saving more, but that doesn't mean that everyone is. It may be that people who were struggling too hard to live day-to-day are continuing to do so now, while those who have always saved money are simply doing so in larger amounts. I am not not arguing that people shouldn't save more, but your point here doesn't really advance the argument that they are able to. Usually, interest rates are controlled by a combination of market forces (investment and saving choices) and Fed policy. Recently, the Fed has been limited in its ability to influence interest rates because rates have fallen to essentially zero. That's part of why the Fed has had to take other, more unusual measures in response to the current crisis.
A study that encompassed 5 states...out of 50. That is 10%. In case you hadn't read the news over the last year or two, different regions of this country are having vastly different economic problems. I also question how many bankruptcy debtors they actually talked to out of those 5 states. In other words...their methodology is bunk.
I saw a lot more of people losing their jobs because they fell ill than I did people that spent it all on med bills. They are both out there, but I saw a LOT more of the latter.
So sayeth Captain Ivory Tower. The fact of the matter is that I walked away from a lot of my client consults thinking "there but for the grace of God go I." Be thankful for your good fortune and stop being so bitter and judgmental of others.
Someone's bitter, alright. I just pointed out the savings rate tanked at the same time bankruptices went up. SHEESH!
I think savings rate's a valid point, but looking at the study's details, it's likely the savings rate prolonged the inevitable. http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
Good to hear things worked out for you. I apologize for the tangent but for me I don't see the point of having an expensive funeral. I've told people if I were to die to treat me like a Honda at a chop shop, take everything that can be used by someone else and toss the rest in a compost heap.
I think fat people use resources than a healthy person because they tend to die of faster. So the real problem is not fot people, but this stupid medical system. Every other modern country has universal healthcare. It is time the US stopped living in the 1900's.
While the life expectancy of someone who is living unhealthy might be shorter the amount of care that is required will be more so someone morbidly obese who dies at 50 probably is using more medical resources than a very healthy person who dies at 70. Just my two cents here the biggest problem to me about the US health care system is that it doesn't encourage preventive health care.
Obesity tax = problem solved and awesome incentive. I know, flame on, but if you can provide tax disincentives against smoking, why not from being overweight? I understand not all metabolisms were created equal, just like addictive personalities are not all created equal, but complications of obesity, like complications from smoking, cause a huge cost strain on the health care system.
There would be hundred pushup tax bracket. You get a deductible for climbing a rope twice. All would administered by your 5th grade gym teacher.
The big problem with an obesity tax is that it would really target the poor disproportionately. People will little access to good nutrition would end up with this extra amount. But I was thinking an obesity tax (apart from those bias problems) could either: add to people's health insurance premiums, or add (chose a number) a certain percentage to their tax bracket. If you are in a X% tax bracket, and you are 80 lbs beyond the recommended range for your age and height, then your federal income tax is X+1% or some such. I'm talking crazy, but it would really acknowledge that it's a huge (har, har) issue and in most cases, people would have some control over it.
As a Canadian, I, who pay a lot more tax for universal healthcare, think Sicko is an entertaining but imbalanced movie. We don't have enough quality doctors, because too many of them flock to the States for a better paying practice. Appointments are ridiculously hard to make, and the doctors rush through their patients because they are overbooked. It's not necessairly the insurance companies which are evil as portrayed in the movie. Coverage depends on the package a patient and/or the employer chooses to pay for. Take the time to understand which package you WILL need. I'd rather have this choice than be herded in and out of the doctor's office probably much later than I needed the appointment. Sure there are obvious postives of universal care. Michael Moore makes universal healthcare seem utopian, which it is not.
As an American, they heard us in and out of the office as quickly as possible with private insurance also. As for bankruptcy, I think people are forgetting one other aspect besides medical insurance. People who are permanantly disabled are going to be in the worst shape. Even if a person has the best medical insurance, most people do not have long-term disability insurance to cover the loss of income from being unable to work. You can't even do a payment plan, because they are insolvent. Some people have short-term disability through their work. Once the short-term disability is gone, they will convert from a ch 13 to 7 and just wipe out all the debt. Then, the house gets foreclosed on.
