6 ms·

Also, the reason people go bankrupt in the US are very different than the reasons people go bankrupt in Europe. 2/3 of personal bankruptcy in the US is linked t

Also, the reason people go bankrupt in the US are very different than the reasons people go bankrupt in Europe. 2/3 of personal bankruptcy in the US is linked to medical debt somehow. That is not the case in Europe.

threemux 2y ago
> 2/3 of personal bankruptcy in the US is linked to medical debt somehow Often cited, but wrong. When you dig in, it turns out to be one of those "wet streets cause rain" causal mix-ups: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/
- itronitron 2y ago
  >> "wet streets cause rain" So are you saying that 2/3 of personal bankruptcy cause medical debt?
  - threemux 2y ago
    No I'm saying that the conditions that lead to one declaring bankruptcy can also cause one to rack up medical debt.
    - hklgny 2y ago
      Having medical issues and no way to pay for them?
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        More that bodies respond to stress of all forms and people who have a failing business might push themselves beyond reasonable healthy limits to avoid that outcome, leaving them in a situation where their finances are wrecked just in time for all the chickens they stored up not getting enough sleep, pulling a double shift, working through the pain, etc. to come home to roost.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  While this article points out some potential problems in the methods used to derive that headline political figure, its own methodology seems to have pretty serious flaws. The most I'd take from this is "This is such a bad problem that even when you try pretty hard to look in the wrong place you find it anyway". This study deliberately does not - just for example - count it as a "medical bankruptcy" if you weren't hospitalized. So magically every person who was bankrupted by the cost of their must-take prescription medicine, they don't count because they need to be admitted to hospital to count for this study.
  - threemux 2y ago
    The thing to take from it is not that the figure the linked study arrives at is "right", but that the cited 2/3 figure is seriously flawed to the point that it shouldn't be cited. As it is, the 2/3 statistic is mainly used to score political points and indeed one of the authors of the original study that came up with the 60% number is Elizabeth Warren. Now, you could say she participated in her capacity as an academic, but I personally have a hard time believing she would have put her name on the paper if it had found, say, 4% of bankruptcies came from medical debt.
    - tialaramex 2y ago
      Why not? 4% is also awful. As a politician you'd probably say "One in every 25" rather than 4% if you wanted to emphasise that it's unacceptable.
      - threemux 2y ago
        Yeah I mean you can certainly have the opinion that any amount of medical bankruptcies greater than 0 is unacceptable, but that has nothing to do with my original point that the 2/3 number should not be cited in discussions about bankruptcy.
  - trashtester 2y ago
    It's still pretty clearly far less wrong than stating 2/3 of bankruptcies are caused by medical costs. If people are arguing about whether the Earth is flat or spherical, you cant use the fact that both are "wrong" (as the Earth is closer to an ellipsoid) to say that "flat" is as correct as "spherical".
- bumby 2y ago
  Why would they exclude elderly from their study? It seems odd to exclude a population with higher rates of health problems. Is there assumption that bankruptcy only matters to those who would otherwise be working?
  - jdewerd 2y ago
    Because the goal is to discredit the 2/3 number by any means necessary.
    - bumby 2y ago
      Tbf, the authors cite (their own) previous work indicating hospitalizations do not cause bankruptcy in the elderly
      - washadjeffmad 2y ago
        Technically true. It's paying the bills on top of the second mortgage after helping your 30 year old grandkids afford college, weddings, and starter homes that leads to bankruptcy. A surprise one-time medical cost is only a minimal contributing factor in the arc of recurring mandatory prescription, insurance, and care costs, at that point. My inner Humean rejoices. That coupled with private equity's involvement in all late / end of life care ensures no one dies with a penny to their name to pass down. It still paints a picture of an out of control, over-financialized system that only gets more expensive the more money is put into it.
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      Ah, there's the old "everyone who disagrees with me is arguing in bad faith" argument the internet loves to make. Wondered how far down I'd have to scroll.
      - jdewerd 2y ago
        Your meta-commentary is just as vapid as mine.
  - deleted 2y ago
- Repulsion9513 2y ago
  Ignoring any other issues here let's look at the article: > people who were admitted to the hospital Ah yes, because there's no other way to get large medical debt. Not like an ambulance and ER stay alone will be high. > in California Obviously representative of a wider area: the most expensive state in the country and #5 highest median income. > adults 25 to 64 years of age Yes, let's exclude those who tend to have the highest medical bills and lowest incomes. > were admitted to the hospital (for a non–pregnancy-related stay) Yes, let's exclude pregnancies, which can be extremely expensive (thank god medicaid covered ours). > for the first time in at least 3 years. Yes, let's exclude people who have the highest medical debt by virtue of having had multiple hospitalizations.
eadmund 2y ago
And even were it true, would it necessarily be a bad thing? Personal bankruptcy is an orderly process in which an individual gets to legally terminate all his debts. If a person with medical debt declares bankruptcy, his creditors lose out but he still has all the medical treatment he went into debt for. He still has all the non-bankruptcy-liable assets (e.g. certain pension and retirement benefits, and in many states his home and vehicle) he started out with. Medical bankruptcy isn’t really the problem. Medical insolvency might be, but the two alternatives are not to receive treatment at all, or for the State to pay for it. The former is obviously worse, and the latter is arguably worse when looked at in toto.

threemux 2y ago

> 2/3 of personal bankruptcy in the US is linked to medical debt somehow Often cited, but wrong. When you dig in, it turns out to be one of those "wet streets cause rain" causal mix-ups: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

itronitron 2y ago
>> "wet streets cause rain" So are you saying that 2/3 of personal bankruptcy cause medical debt?
- threemux 2y ago
  No I'm saying that the conditions that lead to one declaring bankruptcy can also cause one to rack up medical debt.
  - hklgny 2y ago
    Having medical issues and no way to pay for them?
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      More that bodies respond to stress of all forms and people who have a failing business might push themselves beyond reasonable healthy limits to avoid that outcome, leaving them in a situation where their finances are wrecked just in time for all the chickens they stored up not getting enough sleep, pulling a double shift, working through the pain, etc. to come home to roost.
tialaramex 2y ago
While this article points out some potential problems in the methods used to derive that headline political figure, its own methodology seems to have pretty serious flaws. The most I'd take from this is "This is such a bad problem that even when you try pretty hard to look in the wrong place you find it anyway". This study deliberately does not - just for example - count it as a "medical bankruptcy" if you weren't hospitalized. So magically every person who was bankrupted by the cost of their must-take prescription medicine, they don't count because they need to be admitted to hospital to count for this study.
- threemux 2y ago
  The thing to take from it is not that the figure the linked study arrives at is "right", but that the cited 2/3 figure is seriously flawed to the point that it shouldn't be cited. As it is, the 2/3 statistic is mainly used to score political points and indeed one of the authors of the original study that came up with the 60% number is Elizabeth Warren. Now, you could say she participated in her capacity as an academic, but I personally have a hard time believing she would have put her name on the paper if it had found, say, 4% of bankruptcies came from medical debt.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    Why not? 4% is also awful. As a politician you'd probably say "One in every 25" rather than 4% if you wanted to emphasise that it's unacceptable.
    - threemux 2y ago
      Yeah I mean you can certainly have the opinion that any amount of medical bankruptcies greater than 0 is unacceptable, but that has nothing to do with my original point that the 2/3 number should not be cited in discussions about bankruptcy.
- trashtester 2y ago
  It's still pretty clearly far less wrong than stating 2/3 of bankruptcies are caused by medical costs. If people are arguing about whether the Earth is flat or spherical, you cant use the fact that both are "wrong" (as the Earth is closer to an ellipsoid) to say that "flat" is as correct as "spherical".
bumby 2y ago
Why would they exclude elderly from their study? It seems odd to exclude a population with higher rates of health problems. Is there assumption that bankruptcy only matters to those who would otherwise be working?
- jdewerd 2y ago
  Because the goal is to discredit the 2/3 number by any means necessary.
  - bumby 2y ago
    Tbf, the authors cite (their own) previous work indicating hospitalizations do not cause bankruptcy in the elderly
    - washadjeffmad 2y ago
      Technically true. It's paying the bills on top of the second mortgage after helping your 30 year old grandkids afford college, weddings, and starter homes that leads to bankruptcy. A surprise one-time medical cost is only a minimal contributing factor in the arc of recurring mandatory prescription, insurance, and care costs, at that point. My inner Humean rejoices. That coupled with private equity's involvement in all late / end of life care ensures no one dies with a penny to their name to pass down. It still paints a picture of an out of control, over-financialized system that only gets more expensive the more money is put into it.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Ah, there's the old "everyone who disagrees with me is arguing in bad faith" argument the internet loves to make. Wondered how far down I'd have to scroll.
    - jdewerd 2y ago
      Your meta-commentary is just as vapid as mine.
- deleted 2y ago
Repulsion9513 2y ago
Ignoring any other issues here let's look at the article: > people who were admitted to the hospital Ah yes, because there's no other way to get large medical debt. Not like an ambulance and ER stay alone will be high. > in California Obviously representative of a wider area: the most expensive state in the country and #5 highest median income. > adults 25 to 64 years of age Yes, let's exclude those who tend to have the highest medical bills and lowest incomes. > were admitted to the hospital (for a non–pregnancy-related stay) Yes, let's exclude pregnancies, which can be extremely expensive (thank god medicaid covered ours). > for the first time in at least 3 years. Yes, let's exclude people who have the highest medical debt by virtue of having had multiple hospitalizations.

eadmund 2y ago

And even were it true, would it necessarily be a bad thing? Personal bankruptcy is an orderly process in which an individual gets to legally terminate all his debts. If a person with medical debt declares bankruptcy, his creditors lose out but he still has all the medical treatment he went into debt for. He still has all the non-bankruptcy-liable assets (e.g. certain pension and retirement benefits, and in many states his home and vehicle) he started out with. Medical bankruptcy isn’t really the problem. Medical insolvency might be, but the two alternatives are not to receive treatment at all, or for the State to pay for it. The former is obviously worse, and the latter is arguably worse when looked at in toto.