One Medical Condition Away From Bankruptcy
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just six years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.
More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.
Got that? More than 75% had health insurance.
“Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations.”
Hmm… sound like anyone you know?
The researchers, whose work was paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.
“Unless you’re Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,” Harvard’s Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.
“For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection,” he added.
Is this really a sign of a great country? Should having an illness or an accident be a standard reason for filing bankruptcy?
I know I write on this topic a lot, but it amazes me that there’s anything left to debate. As a nation we should be ashamed that people’s lives are ruined simply because they became ill or injured – 75% who had health insurance.
Seems to me, the greatness of a country is judged on how they care for their young, old and sick.
Tags: Health Care
Hmm… sound like anyone you know?
Not sure. I’ll keep thinking on that, though.
Why are people still standing against healthcare reform? It sounds like one thing that can really help the economy!
Pandora et al, I know this is a difficult subject for many, including me. However, we really need to be looking more at protecting people from bankruptcy BECAUSE of medical catastrophes–and not destroying our superior health care knowledge and research because of a delivery method. Penna., under Casey I believe, did a fabulous job with that about 15 years ago, when catastrophic health costs were moot in regards to debt, and debt acquisition. Additionally, we need to look at bankruptcy laws. For many, it became the ability to work the system by keeping “toys”, and grander housing, but defaulting on acquired debt, of which medical debt could be the ace up the sleeve. Believe me Pandora, I know the pain on one side, but I also have seen the gain on the other side. My best solution still remains US health care privatized beyond anything that isn’t clearly a matter of public policy, instead of individual selection–of which you decide the options, hence cost. Of course provided for those disadvantaged by age, and disability to a better degree than we do now. And if the meeting point on that is EVERYONE must be insured, if you have a body, just like if you have a car, than so be it. Yes, healthy 25 yo. enrollee premiums can help out with the peripheral challenges this imposes. But by the same token my old body helps with the discounted auto insurance premiums around here my “up and coming” presently enjoy. Just a thought.
And the public option supporters still can’t get a seat at the table.
It’s the single payer group that can’t get a seat at the table. The public option is there, but getting massive pushback.
oops, yes, single payer. Time for more coffee.
Joanne, this – and not destroying our superior health care knowledge and research – is not true. Right now the quality of health care is based on what you can afford. And, science stops for no man. This idea of scientists going Galt is a fear tactic that isn’t going to happen. BTW, some of the biggest pharma companies are in “socialist” Europe.
The system is broken, geared toward gouging people while denying treatment. It’s a monopoly that had every opportunity to change and chose not to.
I remember many, many years ago when I worked at DuPont, we had medical insurance that paid for medical tests, emergency room visits (if it was truly an emergency), inpatient care, and then you had your catastrophic coverage. Your medical insurance didn’t cover a visit to your family doctor because your nose was runny. Your insurance was insurance, not a free pass to any doctor’s office or doc-in-the-box that you care to go to because you stubbed your toe.
Today we pull out our insurance card with every office visit and pay a small co-pay (some more than others). Because of this small co-pay, we don’t have second thoughts about making a doctor’s appointment when a little common sense is free and has no co-pay.
Insurance companies have maxed out what they are willing to pay when a catastropic event occurs because they are paying so much for our day-to-day care. You can’t have it both ways.
I am certainly not defending insurance companies. I hate them with a passion that is beyond words. They are run by businessmen who think they know more than physicians and condemn people to death everyday. All I’m trying to say is that back in the day you never heard of someone going bankrupt because of an illness.
There is a trade-off, though. Back in the day they didn’t catch illness as early as they do today because people didn’t go to the doctor. So it’s a catch-22. You can’t keep taking out of the insurance pool for preventive healthcare and then expect it to be there when you have a multi-million dollar illness.
We need a focus on preventive care which is really lacking now because of our system. It’s not true that research will stop without profit. There is still plenty of profit to be had.
What I don’t want is some for-profit bureaucrat deciding which treatments I get and which ones I don’t get. I don’t want the for-profit bureaucrat denying coverage retroactively, either.
We need a system that does its best for the most people. We don’t have that now. I think we’ll end up with a two-tier system (which is pretty common). Everyone will get access but some people will be able to afford extra coverage.
So, if all you are worried about is the bankruptcy from a major illness, why are you proposing full blown medical coverage and not a protection against major illnesses?
Like, oh, I dunno… a Health Savings Account.
The insurance that comes with an HSA protects against medical emergencies. High Deductible Health Plans kicks in and will be the safety net you all want, without giving away the farm and providing over the top coverage for every bump and scrape Americans can easily pay for on their own.
H. R. 676 Single Payer
Congressman Castle is not a co-sponsor.
(phone 202 225-4165)
As a congressman, he enjoys single-payer healthcare.
He does not favor single-payer for the rest of us.
So we’re not getting it.
A health savings account doesn’t help someone who makes very little money.
UI beat me to it….health savings accounts are plans with very high annual deductibles. Ours was $5,000 per person; $10,000 per family.
Our HSA was capped by the employer at employer contribution of $1,000 and ours at $2,000. This meant that every year we had to come up with an additional $4,000 (making our total out of pocket $6,000) before the insurance kicked in a dime. $6,000 isn’t an amount we can “easily pay for on our own” year after year.
Took my husband 13 months to find a different employer.
HSAs are just a fancy method of putting a huge cost on the family.
Be fair, Brian. I have written on this topic countless times, so it’s not only bankruptcy that concerns me.
And we did have a health savings account – what a headache. Just recently we upgraded our health insurance – the language was a little too vague with the previous one – and we’re fortunate we could afford to do so. Now, I fully expect to upgrade again in another year or so, because that’s the way the game is played – pay more for the same coverage (sometimes less).
FYI: If you haven’t read your insurance manual, cover to cover complete with the fine print, I suggest you do so. And while you read it, play spot the loopholes. This is one game you can’t afford to suck at.
Exactly, PM. If you have to pay $5000 out-of-pocket, you definitely won’t be getting much preventive care. Also, many plans cap lifetime benefits at $1M, which you can easily hit if you get an expensive disease like cancer. There’s also the dreaded “pre-existing condition” clause, which they use to deny coverage.
We need to get rid of this patchwork system which does not run efficiently, costs more money than everyone else in the world and covers fewer people.
FTR…since P’s reference was about me…
P (et al), we decided against filing. My secured debts are fine and paid, it’s the others that are flaming red. That makes filing more of a reaction of fear over anything else.
A couple of the creditors have threatened to send the accounts off to their attornies now. Well, we at least tried to negotiate monthly payments, which have constantly been refused as too low. Our drafted budget maxed out to the penny what we have with current income, also taking into consideration every day living issues. So, we are just going to send what we proposed and let them do what they claim.
It’s been several years (like over 15), but I worked in collections for a credit card operation before. We used to give “the attornies” line then, too. Know what we really did? Sold it for dimes on the dollar to a third-party. No attorney was involved, unless, I guess, they negotiated the sale of the accounts. One thing to remember about unsecured credit, the creditors are fairly powerless unless you committed fraud. That’s why they charge higher rates, to compensate (no, not mitigate) for the risk they take. Unfortunately, I have become an example, but didn’t choose to.
Anyway, we’ll send a monthly payment and when we either get sued or go to a third-party, we’ll show that we are paying what we can and that we attempted negotiation. We will also show our budget. Our credit is already in tatters and we’ve been living cash-only for months now, so that habit has already adjusted. Threatening me with bad credit is useless, so maybe that’s where the attorney line comes in, to scare me into something that would amount to “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Additionally, through getting sued or through a third-party, their goal of these “other” groups is to get paid, period. Getting a penny is a victory, getting even remotely close to the full balance is a major bonus. My desire is for the banks to hold their (my) accounts and allow us to slow-pay to them until something changes, or we eventually pay it off. If they choose to take a major loss and punt to an outfit that will be more than happy to collect 20-30% of the balance, then that is their call. We made our proposal and we pay our proposal, they simply threaten to haul us off to the attornies (and cost them and us even more money).
FYI- President Obama does not support Single Payer.
There is a difference between National Health Care and Universal Health Care, a huge difference. We can do Universal Health Care, National Health Care will not work.
“Seems to me, the greatness of a country is judged on how they care for their young, old and sick.” Let me give you a memo- SCHIP, Medicaid, Medicare.
Mike Protack
Along with real reform all of need to reform.
http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/health-care-realities-we-are-at-fault/
Medicare dwarfs the obligations of Social Security. Stand alone single payer will not work.
Also, for those who 100% support Medicare for all I want to inform you Medicare is funded by a flat tax so it can’t be good-right?
Mike Protack
A health savings account doesn’t help someone who makes very little money.
I said like an HSA, meaning a high deductible insurance policy.
You burn through a limit of cash and the policy takes over. These types of policies are designed specifically for emergency situations to coincide with an HSA.
Pandora, just because you had one shitty HSA insurance policy doesn’t mean they are all bad. there are good HMO’s and bad HMO’s. There are good policies and bad policies. Don’t cast aside the idea because of your one bad experience.
If you all are complaining about bankruptcies, a high deductible insurance policy covers emergencies that would bankrupt a person. If you want to provide a safety net, THAT is a safety net.
The reality is that you just want another reason to jam government funded full blown heath care down our throats, at the taxpayer’s expense.
If you all are complaining about bankruptcies, a high deductible insurance policy covers emergencies that would bankrupt a person.
Wait until the insurance company fights you and wins an argument in binding arbitration that your third child was the reason for your spouse’s aggravated injuries and not the bitch who hit her head-on at 50MPH while passing in a double-yellow from an inside curve. Oh, then you get the subrogation notice.