Bankruptcy law backfires on credit card issuers

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond
For those of you who like to spout ingorant rhetoric without regard for the facts...

Medical bills make up half of bankruptcies

BOSTON - Costly illnesses trigger about half of all personal bankruptcies, and most of those who go bankrupt because of medical problems have health insurance, according to findings from a Harvard University study to be released Wednesday.

Researchers from Harvard?s law and medical schools said the findings underscore the inadequacy of many private insurance plans that offer worst-case catastrophic coverage, but little financial security for less severe illnesses.

?Unless you?re Bill Gates, you?re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,? said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study?s lead author and an associate professor of medicine. ?Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.?

Thank you Harvard for including pathological gambling problems as a medical condition! Oh, and alcholism too!

What about the other half?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Engineer
It works for people, corporations, etc. Hell, Delphi rushed to set asside $88 million for executive bonuses the day before filing bankruptcy. Not suprising that the common people do the same. Is it right? No...I think that a pattern of running up the bill before filing should be punished with a more severe punishment (both individuals and corporations).

But that behavior from Delphi is ok... since its a corporation, right Zendari?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Engineer
It works for people, corporations, etc. Hell, Delphi rushed to set asside $88 million for executive bonuses the day before filing bankruptcy. Not suprising that the common people do the same. Is it right? No...I think that a pattern of running up the bill before filing should be punished with a more severe punishment (both individuals and corporations).

But that behavior from Delphi is ok... since its a corporation, right Zendari?

That must be a RHETORICAL question as you already know he worships the almighty corporation! :laugh:

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The Volokh link is BS.

The author has a minimal understanding of healthcare or bankruptcy laws. His review of the Health Affairs article is what you would expect from a 2nd grader.

Among the self-identified factors that are listed as "medical" causes of bankruptcy in Exhibit 2 of the article are the following: illness or injury, birth/addition of new family member, death in family, alcohol or drug addiction, uncontrolled gambling. First, it is surely open to question whether uncontrolled gambling or a death in the family really should count as a "medical" problem.

Single-income household: almost ANY illness/injury could lead to destitution unless you've got gold-level supplemental insurance . . . AFLAC!

Childbirth: I guess abortion is an option. Obviously, people shouldn't have children they cannot afford so maybe the tools that read crap like Volokh should advocate for a means test for pregnancy. After my 2nd kid comes in March, I will be paying $25k a year just in daycare . . . yeah it's a nice daycare. But even the cheap route would be $12k a year.

Death in the family: Two income household that loses 40-60% of gross OR a single income household that loses the primary caregiver (now need daycare) would find itself in serious financial peril.

Alcohol or drug addiction: We cannot all be GWB. When he was a cokehead, he had the benefit of having friends in high places and no family to take care of. When he was a drunk, his wife could reliably take care of their young girls.

The inclusion of "uncontrolled gambling" is certainly debatable, though.

First, the authors count anything above 2 weeks of lost work income as a "serious medical problem." There appears to be no time frame over which this is measured, nor does it apparently even need to be consecutive lost work. So, for instance, if a restaurant waiter called in sick for 2 weeks or more in some indeterminate period of time prior to filing bankruptcy, this would presumably count as a serious medical problem.

I don't know any wait staff but I bet their salaries and benefits sux . . . so missing work . . . even a day . . . probably hurts. More directly, the author basically ASSUMES the 2 weeks of lost work occurred over some long period. Idiotic . . . but at least s/he is consistent.

Nor does the requirement of $1,000 in unpaid medical bills within 2 years of bankruptcy seem like a very plausible measure of serious financial problems.

Typical hospital bed charge per night $700, psych ward $900, intensive care $1200 . . . that's PER night. The author goes on to talk about "elective procedures" as if people with low incomes can get service without exceptional insurance or prepaying.

so you're saying that one of the top bankruptcy scholars in the United States doesn't know anything about the subject just because you don't like his conclusions? Typical.

Its amazing how much you missed the point of the article. Just because a birth or a hospital procedure MIGHT legitimately cause a bankruptcy doesn' tmean that every time that happened it was a legitimate cause.


Seriously, what are you trying to say here:
"Typical hospital bed charge per night $700, psych ward $900, intensive care $1200 . . . that's PER night. The author goes on to talk about "elective procedures" as if people with low incomes can get service without exceptional insurance or prepaying."

All he said was that $1000 dollars isn't that much, which it isn't. then you go on and quote larger numbers. The whole point is there was no control to see if the bill actually were that large, or if many of them were just over $1000.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
It has to hurt first if it's going to get better in the long run.

People need to be responsable for their crazy spending. This big surge of bankruptcys will fallout then the law will get ontrack and hopfully the insane spending habits of the middle class with money they don't have will correct itself.

Who is going to serve as a role model . . . Congress?

There are at least two sides to this problem . . . three if you count a culture (endorsed by government) of consumerism.

For Christ's sake, government just passed a law that will compel millions of Americans to buy a new TV or set-top box to allow their old TV to continue functioning. The same government cut programs for the people most likely to face credit problems. Within the first month of 2006, they will likely propose tax cuts for the people least likely to have credit problems.

Did anyone ever get the "Need vs Want" lecture in SIXTH GRADE? If you NEED a TV then you didn't have it.

 

[Vic]

Welcome to the Entitlement Generation.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond
For those of you who like to spout ingorant rhetoric without regard for the facts...

Medical bills make up half of bankruptcies

BOSTON - Costly illnesses trigger about half of all personal bankruptcies, and most of those who go bankrupt because of medical problems have health insurance, according to findings from a Harvard University study to be released Wednesday.

Researchers from Harvard?s law and medical schools said the findings underscore the inadequacy of many private insurance plans that offer worst-case catastrophic coverage, but little financial security for less severe illnesses.

?Unless you?re Bill Gates, you?re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,? said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study?s lead author and an associate professor of medicine. ?Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.?

Thank you Harvard for including pathological gambling problems as a medical condition! Oh, and alcholism too!

What about the other half?

Your exquisite expertise in differentiating, for the entire medical community, what IS and what ISN'T a disease is appreciated. It is amazing that you could so swiftly make that distinction, while thousands of qualified researchers, armed with the latest tests and millions of dollars worth of grants couldn't.

Oh wait... they could. Now go back into your hole and STFU.

 

[Jadow]

I do know that it is highly suspicious when the new rules were written by one affected party, with no input from the other.


Alas, the bankrupt deadbeat lobby isn't too powerful on K-Street.

 

[marincounty]

Since the economy is driven by consumer spending, and this bankruptcy bill may reduce consumer spending, maybe this bill will help the credit card companies while at the same time hurting the economy.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Engineer
It works for people, corporations, etc. Hell, Delphi rushed to set asside $88 million for executive bonuses the day before filing bankruptcy. Not suprising that the common people do the same. Is it right? No...I think that a pattern of running up the bill before filing should be punished with a more severe punishment (both individuals and corporations).

But that behavior from Delphi is ok... since its a corporation, right Zendari?

Not at all.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Jadow
they may have had that initial rash of filings before the deadline, but long term this will help the cc companies a lot, and it will also help America. Having irresponsible people ring up charges they can't pay for and then just filing BK and walking away from it is not good for America.

Wow, more ignorance from the right, amurikkkan supporting, upper class. The lenders in this nation have made credit history a necessity. If you have it you get a good history. Even if you have it, but dont carry a balance youre not going to score as high. I have a TON of debt and an excellent credit score. Guess where most of my debt is concentrated? Yup, student loans and CC debt from grad school. I live VERY humbly, no TV, no nonsense, do you think i fall in into your "ring up charges" group? If so, congrats on having rich parents you brat.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Why not have him downsize his house and downgrade his cars. Give up the 5 series for a Honda. Give up the 5000 sq ft. for 2500. Make a few sacrafices instead of thinking you deserve your standard of living.

Ok, you bratty little repug. How about someone with a postgrad degree (PhD), much student loans and CC debit from graduate school, and VERY little to speak of in terms of "material wealth?" Should he, facing unemployment, "downsize" to a crappier little apt for a cheaper sh!ttier neighborhood, no car, and he hasnt acquired any "goods" for years. Please give "him" some sage advice o' wise teenaged repug.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
FYI...take a look at this house in the bay area:

Link

A similar house in my area would go for 150000.

Looks like an outlandish home...doesn't it ?

Fewer than 15% of the bay area population can afford to buy a house in the bay area. I went to grad school in Berkeley and paid $750 for a studio on a $15,000/year stipend (thats gross). I think the repugs here are capable of doing that kind of math. Er, ... well, .... 😕

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Why not have him downsize his house and downgrade his cars. Give up the 5 series for a Honda. Give up the 5000 sq ft. for 2500. Make a few sacrafices instead of thinking you deserve your standard of living.

Ok, you bratty little repug. How about someone with a postgrad degree (PhD), much student loans and CC debit from graduate school, and VERY little to speak of in terms of "material wealth?" Should he, facing unemployment, "downsize" to a crappier little apt for a cheaper sh!ttier neighborhood, no car, and he hasnt acquired any "goods" for years. Please give "him" some sage advice o' wise teenaged repug.

Yes. What does having a PhD have to do with anything? Having a PhD does not entitle you to the good life. You still have to work for it. I'm sorry if you went though all that schooling and ended up with nothing (seriously), but what do you expect? Live within your means. There are tons of locations around the country where you can live comfortably for very little. Find one. You don't have to live in the most expensive part of the US. Tons of families are forced to make the move across the country. It is VERY hard, but they do it.

Let's put it this way, if you have a graduate degree and can't find a job that can pay even the smallest of bills, then you made a mistake somewhere. My father raised my sister and me alone. We didn't have a lot growing up (very little), but we survived and are now doing much better. It can be done.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

He might have made a mistake after being misled by the false claims of the media, the government, the educational instituations, the colleges, and CEO's being interviewed claiming that America needs more people with science and technology backgrounds, including science Ph.D.'s. You can still hear the propaganda in the media today--America needs more science education--America needs more scientists. Bullocks. Rather, we have a large oversupply of science Ph.D.'s. All those dummies who fell for the propaganda that's been rammed down their throats since high school should have seen through all the lies and known more about the realities of the science Ph.D. job market. They deserve to be lower middle class working at whatever they can find as they're involuntarily-out-of-field.

[Obviously, I'm being facetious.]

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Why not have him downsize his house and downgrade his cars. Give up the 5 series for a Honda. Give up the 5000 sq ft. for 2500. Make a few sacrafices instead of thinking you deserve your standard of living.

Ok, you bratty little repug. How about someone with a postgrad degree (PhD), much student loans and CC debit from graduate school, and VERY little to speak of in terms of "material wealth?" Should he, facing unemployment, "downsize" to a crappier little apt for a cheaper sh!ttier neighborhood, no car, and he hasnt acquired any "goods" for years. Please give "him" some sage advice o' wise teenaged repug.

Yes. What does having a PhD have to do with anything? Having a PhD does not entitle you to the good life. You still have to work for it. I'm sorry if you went though all that schooling and ended up with nothing (seriously), but what do you expect? Live within your means. There are tons of locations around the country where you can live comfortably for very little. Find one. You don't have to live in the most expensive part of the US. Tons of families are forced to make the move across the country. It is VERY hard, but they do it.

Let's put it this way, if you have a graduate degree and can't find a job that can pay even the smallest of bills, then you made a mistake somewhere. My father raised my sister and me alone. We didn't have a lot growing up (very little), but we survived and are now doing much better. It can be done.

Welcome to the Entitlement Generation. It's not about what you earn, it's about what you think you deserve.

And seriously, if you can't get a good job with a Ph.D., there must be something seriously wrong with you. The unemployment rate among Ph.D.'s is essentially zero, and a doctorate is pretty much a guaranteed 6-figure income, which is more than twice the average household income in America. If you can't cut it on that, O Rich Doctor in yon Ivory Tower, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[BBond]

I find it hilarious that the very same people who support an administration that is living far beyond their means and bankrupting America in the process is demanding that the rest of us live within our means.

Hey, Americans are only following the example set by their "leader".

:laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BBond
I find it hilarious that the very same people who support an administration that is living far beyond their means and bankrupting America in the process is demanding that the rest of us live within our means.

Hey, Americans are only following the example set by their "leader".

:laugh:

I hope you don't mean me. I've never voted for or nor even supported a Republican candidate for President in my whole life. Just because I don't support your entitlement agenda doesn't make me a Republican.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BBond
I find it hilarious that the very same people who support an administration that is living far beyond their means and bankrupting America in the process is demanding that the rest of us live within our means.

Hey, Americans are only following the example set by their "leader".

:laugh:

I hope you don't mean me. I've never voted for or nor even supported a Republican candidate for President in my whole life. Just because I don't support your entitlement agenda doesn't make me a Republican.

I'm referring to the Bushies here who frame every issue as liberal vs conservative when in fact there are plenty of conservatives who have taken advantage of the bankruptcy laws, including some very rich people like Donald Trump and some very rich corporations. But the liberal haters see it all as just more liberal entitlements. 😉

And they ignore the fact that their "leader" is exhibiting the same exact behavior through his reckless economic policies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BBond
I find it hilarious that the very same people who support an administration that is living far beyond their means and bankrupting America in the process is demanding that the rest of us live within our means.

Hey, Americans are only following the example set by their "leader".

:laugh:

I hope you don't mean me. I've never voted for or nor even supported a Republican candidate for President in my whole life. Just because I don't support your entitlement agenda doesn't make me a Republican.

I'm referring to the Bushies here who frame every issue as liberal vs conservative when in fact there are plenty of conservatives who have taken advantage of the bankruptcy laws, including some very rich people like Donald Trump and some very rich corporations. But the liberal haters see it all as just more liberal entitlements. 😉

And they ignore the fact that their "leader" is exhibiting the same exact behavior through his reckless economic policies.

It's not that you're the pot calling the kettle black that gets to me, it's that you're completely blind to the fact you're doing it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The point of Volokh was garbage. The author does not understand healthcare and obviously doesn't understand how MANY Americans live at the margins of fiscal peril.

All of my patients are children with autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or Fragile X. They participate in our research studies so they receive care free of charge, but almost every time I see one of my patients . . . there parents lose a half-day to a full-day of work.

If they were not part of our studies but managed to be fortunate enough to find a child psychiatrist or pediatric neurologist, they would pay for their visits, diagnostic tests (including neuropsych), and medications. Despite those heady expensives . . . it's quite possible they will not get any better.

Volokh's ignorance of modern healthcare financing is obvious. You CANNOT secure an elective procedure without PREPAY or having an insurance company contract for FULL payment. Accordingly, Volokh's comment on elective procedures is just plain poo.

$1000 isn't much to me. I write a check for that much every month for day care. Next year I will have the pleasure of writing two. If I had to guess Volokh has decent bank as well. But that's not how millions upon millions of Americans live. If you doubt it consult any state that currently provides heating/utility assistance during the winter . . . even a few hundred bucks over a few months is a hardship.

Personal responsibility is indeed GOOD. People should be held accountable for their behavior. BUT every stakeholder should be held accountable. Credit companies, consumers, and politicans alike. Sadly, the only people being held to a "higher" standard are those without a lobby and those NOT having their pockets lined by the lobbyists.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BBond
I find it hilarious that the very same people who support an administration that is living far beyond their means and bankrupting America in the process is demanding that the rest of us live within our means.

Hey, Americans are only following the example set by their "leader".

:laugh:

I hope you don't mean me. I've never voted for or nor even supported a Republican candidate for President in my whole life. Just because I don't support your entitlement agenda doesn't make me a Republican.

I'm referring to the Bushies here who frame every issue as liberal vs conservative when in fact there are plenty of conservatives who have taken advantage of the bankruptcy laws, including some very rich people like Donald Trump and some very rich corporations. But the liberal haters see it all as just more liberal entitlements. 😉

And they ignore the fact that their "leader" is exhibiting the same exact behavior through his reckless economic policies.

It's not that you're the pot calling the kettle black that gets to me, it's that you're completely blind to the fact you're doing it.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The point of Volokh was garbage. The author does not understand healthcare and obviously doesn't understand how MANY Americans live at the margins of fiscal peril.

All of my patients are children with autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or Fragile X. They participate in our research studies so they receive care free of charge, but almost every time I see one of my patients . . . there parents lose a half-day to a full-day of work.

If they were not part of our studies but managed to be fortunate enough to find a child psychiatrist or pediatric neurologist, they would pay for their visits, diagnostic tests (including neuropsych), and medications. Despite those heady expensives . . . it's quite possible they will not get any better.

Volokh's ignorance of modern healthcare financing is obvious. You CANNOT secure an elective procedure without PREPAY or having an insurance company contract for FULL payment. Accordingly, Volokh's comment on elective procedures is just plain poo.

$1000 isn't much to me. I write a check for that much every month for day care. Next year I will have the pleasure of writing two. If I had to guess Volokh has decent bank as well. But that's not how millions upon millions of Americans live. If you doubt it consult any state that currently provides heating/utility assistance during the winter . . . even a few hundred bucks over a few months is a hardship.

Personal responsibility is indeed GOOD. People should be held accountable for their behavior. BUT every stakeholder should be held accountable. Credit companies, consumers, and politicans alike. Sadly, the only people being held to a "higher" standard are those without a lobby and those NOT having their pockets lined by the lobbyists.

People usually change their views when hardship befalls them. Then they use their prior mantra of personal responsiblilty as a shield.

Life has its inevitable ups and downs. People deserve a second chance. Some are criticized for it, some aren't. It is, as you say, only a matter of who is connected and who isn't.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The point of Volokh was garbage. The author does not understand healthcare and obviously doesn't understand how MANY Americans live at the margins of fiscal peril.

All of my patients are children with autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or Fragile X. They participate in our research studies so they receive care free of charge, but almost every time I see one of my patients . . . there parents lose a half-day to a full-day of work.

If they were not part of our studies but managed to be fortunate enough to find a child psychiatrist or pediatric neurologist, they would pay for their visits, diagnostic tests (including neuropsych), and medications. Despite those heady expensives . . . it's quite possible they will not get any better.

Volokh's ignorance of modern healthcare financing is obvious. You CANNOT secure an elective procedure without PREPAY or having an insurance company contract for FULL payment. Accordingly, Volokh's comment on elective procedures is just plain poo.

$1000 isn't much to me. I write a check for that much every month for day care. Next year I will have the pleasure of writing two. If I had to guess Volokh has decent bank as well. But that's not how millions upon millions of Americans live. If you doubt it consult any state that currently provides heating/utility assistance during the winter . . . even a few hundred bucks over a few months is a hardship.

Personal responsibility is indeed GOOD. People should be held accountable for their behavior. BUT every stakeholder should be held accountable. Credit companies, consumers, and politicans alike. Sadly, the only people being held to a "higher" standard are those without a lobby and those NOT having their pockets lined by the lobbyists.

And once again your entire criticism is completely off-topic. The study is fundamentally flawed because it takes $1000 in medical bills as complete proof that your medical bills caused your bankruptcy when anyone with half a brain can see how obviously stupid that is. And for some reason you just keep whining about how he doesn't understand health insurance when thats not the freaking point. How many Americans "live at the margin of fiscal peril" has nothing to do with the study being garbage. .


I find it funny yo uhad to spend 5 paragraphs addressing about 2 lines in the article about elective medical procedures. Can't address the substance of it so you have to mess around with smoke and mirrors pretending you're actually criticizing something substantive.

And for the BS that there was no one lobbying against this bills. Well thats BS. You can't be dumb enough to think that attorneys aren't a significant lobby, and they were out in force against this. Moreover, the bill came from the judiciary committee, where, guess what, lawyers are proportionately more influential than they are in other parts of congress.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BBond
People usually change their views when hardship befalls them. Then they use their prior mantra of personal responsiblilty as a shield.

Life has its inevitable ups and downs. People deserve a second chance. Some are criticized for it, some aren't. It is, as you say, only a matter of who is connected and who isn't.

Which explains why most new-age bleeding heart "liberals" are affluent idealistic youth who have sufferred little to no hardship in life, right? :roll:

Really, this isn't about giving or not giving people a second chance. No one has a problem with giving people a second chance, not even the creditors. This is about making sure the system isn't abused. Most everyone works hard to pay their bills and be responsible, and they just want to make sure everyone else is doing the same, that bankruptcy is being used as a last resort, and that deadbeats aren't getting a ticket to ride.

Personally, I think the ideal system would be to make it relatively easy to declare bankruptcy, but to force filers to pay full income taxes on all non-medical discharged debts. Under our current system, a discharged debt is essentially tax-free income.