Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Rt.66
ParticipantPemeliza has a good point, if you would like an historical perspective of how Government intervention plays out when it comes to attempts at propping up assets then look to Japan.
Debates like this were going on in Japan and 18 years later RE is still going down. Incidentally the Japanese Gov. really never has abandoned efforts to stabilize home prices in Japan and 18 years of trying is still failing to get appreciation other than an occasional blip. My two cents.
ParticipantPemeliza has a good point, if you would like an historical perspective of how Government intervention plays out when it comes to attempts at propping up assets then look to Japan.
Debates like this were going on in Japan and 18 years later RE is still going down. Incidentally the Japanese Gov. really never has abandoned efforts to stabilize home prices in Japan and 18 years of trying is still failing to get appreciation other than an occasional blip. My two cents.
ParticipantPemeliza has a good point, if you would like an historical perspective of how Government intervention plays out when it comes to attempts at propping up assets then look to Japan.
Debates like this were going on in Japan and 18 years later RE is still going down. Incidentally the Japanese Gov. really never has abandoned efforts to stabilize home prices in Japan and 18 years of trying is still failing to get appreciation other than an occasional blip. My two cents.
ParticipantPemeliza has a good point, if you would like an historical perspective of how Government intervention plays out when it comes to attempts at propping up assets then look to Japan.
Debates like this were going on in Japan and 18 years later RE is still going down. Incidentally the Japanese Gov. really never has abandoned efforts to stabilize home prices in Japan and 18 years of trying is still failing to get appreciation other than an occasional blip. My two cents.
ParticipantPeople, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:
1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.
I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.
From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”
I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?
Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.
Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.
Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?
Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:
Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.
ParticipantPeople, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:
1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.
I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.
From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”
I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?
Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.
Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.
Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?
Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:
Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.
ParticipantPeople, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:
1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.
I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.
From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”
I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?
Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.
Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.
Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?
Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:
Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.
ParticipantPeople, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:
1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.
I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.
From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”
I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?
Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.
Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.
Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?
Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:
Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.
ParticipantPeople, people, people. It seems that no one is disagreeing with me but at the same time some want to appear as if they agree with SDRealtor. Here is the statement I am debating:
1. The pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is. That’s because this data includes defaults on second mortgages. Many people intentionally defaulted on the 2nd mortgages only, knowing that the junior lien holders don’t have the legal right to kick them out. At the same time, these same people negotiate with the primary mortgage lender to lower their mortgage payments. So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.
I can’t find one post from anybody agreeing “pre-foreclosure data looks much worse than it actually is” because of 2nds. Notice the word MUCH.
From what I can see there is no one else that has posted they believe there is an appreciable number of 2nds who have filed NODs, let alone ”many” that have done so, AND, AND that people are living in these 2nd mortgage holder filing NOD homes while paying a modified first, SO MANY to make this an accurate statement “So, a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs.”
I am saying this is a total fabrication of a statement and still can’t find one article that backs up this theory. This a bulls versus bears thread, is this theory on seconds going to keep a significant percentage of homes from becoming a drag on the market thru a distressed sales/REO/short sales or not?
Stay focused people. We are looking for MANY 2nds filing NODs. AND we are looking for the owners STAYING in those homes PAYING a modified First mortgage. And documentation that a significant percentage of the properties that are in default will not end up as REOs/shorts ala a drag on RE prices.
Some keep focusing on the fact that I asked for just one example as if that means I claim there is not one case of this happening. Please note that have always maintained that it’s not happening in “appreciable numbers”. I ask for just one instance, but am not saying that a few people will not try this. No back paddling, go back and read my actual words.
Why do I need to explain these things? The claim is a significant percentage and I get stuck with explaining that I’m not debating that one or two or even a hundred people may try this highly illogical step??? WTF?
Maybe you can get it if I say it like this:
Many people are not doing this to the point that the number is so small you can’t find even one case of it. Get it? Not saying there is not one, just that it’s so rare you can’t document one. Tricky huh? But I am not saying that some people won’t try this. People will do every crazy thing imaginable in small numbers. Some may take off work to try and get a photo of Big Foot to sell and pay off the late mortgage. Some may try the Vegas tables to get out of the hole. I’m just saying it’s a really small number and so small in fact no one else has documented or wrote of its occurrence
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
And please recognize that a short sale wherein they lose the house is not an example of what we are looking for. A short sale is just that, SHORT, as in short of the original loan as in just another form of distressed, market dragging inventory. Whether the house sells at drastic discount at short sale before a complete foreclosure or it sells at a drastic discount as an REO matters not. For a bear argument, same, same, bad, bad.
ParticipantI agree that the debate should simply be that US healthcare is broken, plain and simple and how do we fix it. By polarizing it with two sides you weaken the public option. Is there really two sides? It’s broken and needs to be fixed so the debate should stick to that, it’s not as if there is NHC or keep what we’ve got. Most know that costs have spiraled out of control and continue to get crazier every year. Most know that what used to be a good system, now simply excludes too many to be called a functioning system at all.
The debate should not be NHC or NOT NHC. It should be NHC or some other complete revamp.
I have what would be called good health insurance in today’s environment. I’ve always had good insurance, yet I have seen the cost of that go parabolic in the past 5-7 years and seen many around me who once were covered lose their insurance because it just got so expensive.
A family member had a MINOR fall which really needed no medical attention but over-zealous ambulance drivers and ER folks turned it into a feeding frenzy on my insurance. The result was nearly $50k and my insurance company looked at the bill, including $99 for 1 Ibuprofen (no shit!) a bunch of stupid tests (, none of which showed an injury of any kind) and decided this was over billing bunk and did not pay it all. So now the hospital is after me for nearly $5k. Remember I have good insurance.
Moral of this story is hospitals are not dumb, if they are forced to treat people with no money or insurance for free, then they will make up the difference elsewhere (from the insured). It does not take a rocket scientist to see that will result in abuses to insurance. The system is just broke.
As far as doctors go, I would guess that those who are compassionate about healing and serving man kind would love a public option and those who are in it for the money will be on the side that pays best?
“Unless you’re a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you’re one illness away from financial ruin in this country,” says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. “If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that’s the major finding in our study.”
Dr. Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
They concluded that 62.1% of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10% of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.
“That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study—78% of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,” says Dr. Woolhandler. “Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance.”
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-bankruptcies/ParticipantI agree that the debate should simply be that US healthcare is broken, plain and simple and how do we fix it. By polarizing it with two sides you weaken the public option. Is there really two sides? It’s broken and needs to be fixed so the debate should stick to that, it’s not as if there is NHC or keep what we’ve got. Most know that costs have spiraled out of control and continue to get crazier every year. Most know that what used to be a good system, now simply excludes too many to be called a functioning system at all.
The debate should not be NHC or NOT NHC. It should be NHC or some other complete revamp.
I have what would be called good health insurance in today’s environment. I’ve always had good insurance, yet I have seen the cost of that go parabolic in the past 5-7 years and seen many around me who once were covered lose their insurance because it just got so expensive.
A family member had a MINOR fall which really needed no medical attention but over-zealous ambulance drivers and ER folks turned it into a feeding frenzy on my insurance. The result was nearly $50k and my insurance company looked at the bill, including $99 for 1 Ibuprofen (no shit!) a bunch of stupid tests (, none of which showed an injury of any kind) and decided this was over billing bunk and did not pay it all. So now the hospital is after me for nearly $5k. Remember I have good insurance.
Moral of this story is hospitals are not dumb, if they are forced to treat people with no money or insurance for free, then they will make up the difference elsewhere (from the insured). It does not take a rocket scientist to see that will result in abuses to insurance. The system is just broke.
As far as doctors go, I would guess that those who are compassionate about healing and serving man kind would love a public option and those who are in it for the money will be on the side that pays best?
“Unless you’re a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you’re one illness away from financial ruin in this country,” says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. “If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that’s the major finding in our study.”
Dr. Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
They concluded that 62.1% of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10% of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.
“That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study—78% of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,” says Dr. Woolhandler. “Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance.”
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-bankruptcies/ParticipantI agree that the debate should simply be that US healthcare is broken, plain and simple and how do we fix it. By polarizing it with two sides you weaken the public option. Is there really two sides? It’s broken and needs to be fixed so the debate should stick to that, it’s not as if there is NHC or keep what we’ve got. Most know that costs have spiraled out of control and continue to get crazier every year. Most know that what used to be a good system, now simply excludes too many to be called a functioning system at all.
The debate should not be NHC or NOT NHC. It should be NHC or some other complete revamp.
I have what would be called good health insurance in today’s environment. I’ve always had good insurance, yet I have seen the cost of that go parabolic in the past 5-7 years and seen many around me who once were covered lose their insurance because it just got so expensive.
A family member had a MINOR fall which really needed no medical attention but over-zealous ambulance drivers and ER folks turned it into a feeding frenzy on my insurance. The result was nearly $50k and my insurance company looked at the bill, including $99 for 1 Ibuprofen (no shit!) a bunch of stupid tests (, none of which showed an injury of any kind) and decided this was over billing bunk and did not pay it all. So now the hospital is after me for nearly $5k. Remember I have good insurance.
Moral of this story is hospitals are not dumb, if they are forced to treat people with no money or insurance for free, then they will make up the difference elsewhere (from the insured). It does not take a rocket scientist to see that will result in abuses to insurance. The system is just broke.
As far as doctors go, I would guess that those who are compassionate about healing and serving man kind would love a public option and those who are in it for the money will be on the side that pays best?
“Unless you’re a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you’re one illness away from financial ruin in this country,” says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. “If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that’s the major finding in our study.”
Dr. Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
They concluded that 62.1% of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10% of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.
“That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study—78% of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,” says Dr. Woolhandler. “Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance.”
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-bankruptcies/ParticipantI agree that the debate should simply be that US healthcare is broken, plain and simple and how do we fix it. By polarizing it with two sides you weaken the public option. Is there really two sides? It’s broken and needs to be fixed so the debate should stick to that, it’s not as if there is NHC or keep what we’ve got. Most know that costs have spiraled out of control and continue to get crazier every year. Most know that what used to be a good system, now simply excludes too many to be called a functioning system at all.
The debate should not be NHC or NOT NHC. It should be NHC or some other complete revamp.
I have what would be called good health insurance in today’s environment. I’ve always had good insurance, yet I have seen the cost of that go parabolic in the past 5-7 years and seen many around me who once were covered lose their insurance because it just got so expensive.
A family member had a MINOR fall which really needed no medical attention but over-zealous ambulance drivers and ER folks turned it into a feeding frenzy on my insurance. The result was nearly $50k and my insurance company looked at the bill, including $99 for 1 Ibuprofen (no shit!) a bunch of stupid tests (, none of which showed an injury of any kind) and decided this was over billing bunk and did not pay it all. So now the hospital is after me for nearly $5k. Remember I have good insurance.
Moral of this story is hospitals are not dumb, if they are forced to treat people with no money or insurance for free, then they will make up the difference elsewhere (from the insured). It does not take a rocket scientist to see that will result in abuses to insurance. The system is just broke.
As far as doctors go, I would guess that those who are compassionate about healing and serving man kind would love a public option and those who are in it for the money will be on the side that pays best?
“Unless you’re a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you’re one illness away from financial ruin in this country,” says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. “If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that’s the major finding in our study.”
Dr. Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
They concluded that 62.1% of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10% of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.
“That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study—78% of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,” says Dr. Woolhandler. “Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance.”
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-bankruptcies/ParticipantI agree that the debate should simply be that US healthcare is broken, plain and simple and how do we fix it. By polarizing it with two sides you weaken the public option. Is there really two sides? It’s broken and needs to be fixed so the debate should stick to that, it’s not as if there is NHC or keep what we’ve got. Most know that costs have spiraled out of control and continue to get crazier every year. Most know that what used to be a good system, now simply excludes too many to be called a functioning system at all.
The debate should not be NHC or NOT NHC. It should be NHC or some other complete revamp.
I have what would be called good health insurance in today’s environment. I’ve always had good insurance, yet I have seen the cost of that go parabolic in the past 5-7 years and seen many around me who once were covered lose their insurance because it just got so expensive.
A family member had a MINOR fall which really needed no medical attention but over-zealous ambulance drivers and ER folks turned it into a feeding frenzy on my insurance. The result was nearly $50k and my insurance company looked at the bill, including $99 for 1 Ibuprofen (no shit!) a bunch of stupid tests (, none of which showed an injury of any kind) and decided this was over billing bunk and did not pay it all. So now the hospital is after me for nearly $5k. Remember I have good insurance.
Moral of this story is hospitals are not dumb, if they are forced to treat people with no money or insurance for free, then they will make up the difference elsewhere (from the insured). It does not take a rocket scientist to see that will result in abuses to insurance. The system is just broke.
As far as doctors go, I would guess that those who are compassionate about healing and serving man kind would love a public option and those who are in it for the money will be on the side that pays best?
“Unless you’re a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you’re one illness away from financial ruin in this country,” says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. “If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that’s the major finding in our study.”
Dr. Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
They concluded that 62.1% of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10% of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.
“That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study—78% of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,” says Dr. Woolhandler. “Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance.”
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-bankruptcies/ -
AuthorPosts
