Health Care..what do you think?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

That's a rather neat turn of phrase, that's a complete non sequitur.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is a non sequitur. What I was saying is the bankruptcy rate in a year due to health issues (not just healthcare costs), according to the study where all this crap started, is around two and a half households per thousand. That is not a lot of bankruptcies.

If you actually read the study your "primary cause of insolvency" statistic came from healthcare costs were not the primary cause of insolvency (bankruptcy). Health issues, and the resulting loss of income, were the primary cause of bankruptcy. Only a bit more than half of those who specifically stated medical issues were the reason for their bankruptcy owed more than $5000 or 10% of their income. The flip side is many of these people were declaring bankruptcy over medical debt of less than $5000.

The most common reason given by those who responded to the survey was loosing 2 or more weeks of income due to an illness or becoming permanently disabled, neither of which are covered under standard health insurance. It sounds to me like the more common problem was people living paycheck to paycheck rather than anything to do with the medical system itself. This problem is not something that will be remedied by healthcare reform.

To be clear about the question I am going to ask, it is not a loaded question. I do not know and am genuinely curious. Does the national health insurance program in Canada come with short term or long term disability? Social Security here provides long term disability but I don't believe the monthly stipend is significant.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is a non sequitur. What I was saying is the bankruptcy rate in a year due to health issues (not just healthcare costs), according to the study where all this crap started, is around two and a half households per thousand. That is not a lot of bankruptcies.

If you actually read the study your "primary cause of insolvency" statistic came from healthcare costs were not the primary cause of insolvency (bankruptcy). Health issues, and the resulting loss of income, were the primary cause of bankruptcy. Only a bit more than half of those who specifically stated medical issues were the reason for their bankruptcy owed more than $5000 or 10% of their income. The flip side is many of these people were declaring bankruptcy over medical debt of less than $5000.

The most common reason given by those who responded to the survey was loosing 2 or more weeks of income due to an illness or becoming permanently disabled, neither of which are covered under standard health insurance. It sounds to me like the more common problem was people living paycheck to paycheck rather than anything to do with the medical system itself. This problem is not something that will be remedied by healthcare reform.

To be clear about the question I am going to ask, it is not a loaded question. I do not know and am genuinely curious. Does the national health insurance program in Canada come with short term or long term disability? Social Security here provides long term disability but I don't believe the monthly stipend is significant.

It was a non sequitur because your statement stated in the first part that something was equal then in the second part, after flipping the words, stated that they were not equal.

In Canada our health care system does not include short or long term disability, but our social safety net effectively does. For example Employment Insurance can bridge, for a time, when someone is incapable of working. One the occasion when I had to collect myself, due to a riding injury, I was receiving 65% of my previous salary while not having to pay any medical bills. Other social programmes kick in when EI runs out.

Many employers provide supplemental coverage, as does my current employer, which can include short and long term disability. I also have a dental plan, coverage for travel, upgrade to semi-private room....

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

It was a non sequitur because your statement stated in the first part that something was equal then in the second part, after flipping the words, stated that they were not equal.

My point in doing so was to demonstrate the non sequitur in your own statement. That the primary cause of bankruptcies is healthcare costs (which is a fallacy to begin with) is only a "pretty large problem" if it is causing a lot of bankruptcies. Two and a half families per thousand is the distribution of those who claim "health issues" as their primary reason for declaring bankruptcy. When the cause is actually reduced to those self reporting on a survey medical debts of over $5000 or 10% that number comes down to less than 1 family per thousand. Less than a 10th of a percent isn't, to me, a lot.

My statement is only a non sequiter if your statement holds up, which I don't believe it does.

[Papa_Complex]

If so, then you failed. A statement that is internally self contradictory shows nothing.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If so, then you failed. A statement that is internally self contradictory shows nothing.

Reread it, it isn't contradictory. Maybe you are getting confused by the wording. Does it make more sense as "The fact that many bankruptcies have been caused by healthcare doesn't mean healthcare causes a lot of bankruptcies."?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Reread it, it isn't contradictory. Maybe you are getting confused by the wording. Does it make more sense as "The fact that many bankruptcies have been caused by healthcare doesn't mean healthcare causes a lot of bankruptcies."?

And what is the "cause" that's being stated in your argument?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And what is the "cause" that's being stated in your argument?

Healthcare, but that is immaterial to an argument about the logic of the statement. It could be credit cards, car loans, or doritos budget and it would remain the same.

I think where we are diverging is you are interpreting the second portion "healthcare causes a lot of bankruptcies" differently than I intended. I did not mean healthcare causes a lot of the bankruptcies that occur, that was covered in the first portion. What I am trying to demonstrate is the difference between proportion (first part) and often it actually occurs (second part).

Using made up numbers for demonstration purposes, say 70% of all bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills (proportion, first part of my statement, sounds like a lot), but if there are only 10 bankruptcies in the US per year, only 7 bankruptcies are caused by medical bills (actual occurrences, second part of my statement, not a lot). Does it make more sense now?

[Papa_Complex]

Your statement was:

health care == bankruptcies

bankruptcies =/= heathcare

If that wasn't what you meant, then you need to work on your wording. Changing the position of congruencies in an equation doesn't alter the value of them.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Your statement was:

health care == bankruptcies

bankruptcies =/= heathcare

If that wasn't what you meant, then you need to work on your wording. Changing the position of congruencies in an equation doesn't alter the value of them.

This is true if what you described above is the only possible interpretation of the statement. There are other possibilities. While I agree that my wording of the initial statement could have been better I would have thought explaining it 3 times would have made it clearer.

Regardless of the wording of my statement, your original statement was factually incorrect (stating medical costs rather than medical issues as the primary cause of bankruptcies) as well as logically incorrect (assuming a large proportion of bankruptcies = a large number of bankruptcies). Do you understand why or do I need to explain it further?

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by cbrchick

Cost of transport via Life Flight - minimal
Cost of cardiac cath during acute heart attack - zero
Cost of hip replacement, CT's, MRI's, Xrays, blood tests - zero
Cost of Trauma team to save your ass post motorcycle accident - zero
Cost for stay in ICU - zero
Cost to have specialists work on you for months - zero
Cost to have a child with special needs taken care of in hospital - zero
Cost of antibiotics, special infusion devices, external hearts, pace makers, skin grafts, plastic surgery post accident....etc.
Cost to have a public health nurse follow your child's growth for 6 years - zero

So if you don't pay anything then who pays for it? And don't give me that "higher taxes" crap. Even with higher taxes I doubt you ever put in enough to pay for a Life Flight, hip replacement, or to pay for the Trauma team to save your ass post motorcycle accident.

The truth is you are STEALING money from other people to pay for your problems.