Zaleriana:
Warren's 2007 data shows $33,882 with N=2371. The sec'd debt median was
$35,000. The 2001 amount (in 07 $$) was $23,594, based on N=1233, w/
Sec'd median=$28,970. So, your recollection is better than mine, but I
seriously question their results.
Notwithstanding statistical equivalence of the samples (adequately
demonstrated to my barely-trained eye), I am skeptical of a doubling of
N out of a smaller cohort of filers. Indeed, the explanation for their
presumed equivalence is:
"Our prior studies were not random national samples but random samples
drawn from five judicial districts. We have no reason to believe this
affects the comparisons we make to these earlier cohorts of bankruptcy
filers."
Yeah, right. Because one doesn't care to think about it, does not equal no basis for doubt.
Another, unrelated, absurdity in the Study article (fn 63)
"The authors believe that the higher proportion of legal service
clients in Philadelphia drove down the average homeownership rates in
that district unrepresentatively"
Uh, no, the lower HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE of Philly residents, across
(almost) all income levels, drove down the homeownership rate of
petitioners in Philly. This is soo simple, I have a hard time taking
their conclusions seriously.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Megan, yes, there appears to be some methodological errors in this study.
Now, yes or no-- there are very many people in this country who are incapable of getting access to appropriate medical care because of their financial and employment situation. What do you propose to do about it? You've been poking holes and picking nits with universal health care access for as long as I can remember. I can't recall a time when you've explained what, exactly, you would say to the many, many people in this country who can't get necessary medical intervention because they can't afford it.
What would you have them do?
We have a program for people who cannot get access to necessary medical intervention because they can't afford it, Freddie. It's called Medicaid. If Medicaid is inadequate, you expand it, you don't trash the entire health care system.
Next question?
Lunatic, if you're suggesting that Medicaid adequately provides coverage to everyone in the United States, you are just totally, utterly wrong. You're beyond wrong.
And this is the heart of the matter: people who either deny the truth that millions in this country lack adequate health care access, or who simply ignore that fact, are not good faith operators in this debate.
Lunatic, if you're suggesting that Medicaid adequately provides coverage to everyone in the United States, you are just totally, utterly wrong.
Are you literate, sir? I just said, "If Medicaid is inadequate, you expand it, you don't trash the entire health care system."
Freddie, what do you mean by "necessary"? Do you mean interventions that would improve health (in aggregate), or something else?
If so, I'd like to see evidence of this. It's actually pretty hard to prove that marginal medicine has *any* beneficial effect, so I'm really curious where you are getting your numbers from.
But god forbid we help some poor, undeserving 50-year laborer old who bought an old boat and motor with plans to overhaul them for his summer fun, without realizing he was growing a big old lump of cancer in his prostrate.
He should have been saving all his extra change for his medical emergency, not planning on a few hours a week of fishing in the sunshine.
Oh sure, that's a great plan. Everyone should avoid doing things they enjoy; instead, save all disposable income in case of potential medical problems at some point in the future.
Genius!
sigh. that was the point. so glad you got it.
these threads are filled with notions of folks going bankrupt because they failed to save, failed to eat properly, purchased too big a house. . .and kept on living beyond their means after a medical emergency struck.
Doesn't medical bankruptcy imply that they did get medical intervention? Person gets sick, gets treatment, and then he can't pay the bill, so he declares bankruptcy, and the bill is forgiven (to the extent he can't pay).
And I'm not saying that in some snotty or rhetorically malicious way. Seriously.
What I am saying is that I wonder if posts like these-- which are perfectly in keeping with the general tactics of those who oppose single payer-- don't win the battle but lose the war. The more that libertarians or others opposed to universal health coverage focus on efforts to downplay the number of people who are unable to get access to coverage, the more you rhetorically disarm yourself, and the more you play into the hands of those who represent you as unfeeling or callous. Isn't there an implicit recognition that people without health care access is a bad thing, when you work so hard to mitigate the data? And if so, then I don't see how support for universal health care can help but follow.
You've told me many times that supporters of health care reform should argue from a moral standpoint, not a standpoint of efficiency. And you're right! But I think that suggest something on your end as well. I think you've either got to argue against any moral responsibility for the government to provide health care to those who don't have it, or propose an alternative that is a genuine solution for the many, many people with no insurance or inadequate insurance. The longer you go on arguing minutiae, the less it seems that you are making a philosophically credible stance.
I wonder if posts like these-- which are perfectly in keeping with the general tactics of those who oppose single payer-- don't win the battle but lose the war
Freddie, man, I don't have a strong position either way on single payer (maybe lean a little toward, and certainly support universal coverage, but don't know if it's worth the cost), but I don't see how pointing out that the article was--at best--sloppy is eveidence of general tactics of anything. It really looks like Liz's* co-authors took her data and squeezed it into the point they wanted to make and made some exceedingly stupid comments about the data (or lack thereof) along the way.
Arguing by making up shit is not helpful in a quest to convince people who know anything about the subject being argued. I know something about bankruptcy and the rest is common sense--why are fewer Philadelphia residents homeowners? Because only 59% of Philadelphians own their homes while its 71% statewide. This would be shoddy work in undergrad; it seems to be par for the course in the article, which has too much evidence of agenda meeting and too little evidence of reflection and careful thought.
*NB--I respect Elizabeth Warren's knowledge of bankruptcy and her academic work on teh subject. I think most of her studies have added to our understanding of what works and where problems lie in the individual bankruptcy process. Note she was author 4 or 5 (whatever--not looking it up) on this particular article.
Glad to see you continuing this series, Megan. This study should have had such review before being published.
This may be a bit much to ask, but in order to ice the cake, you need to do three things.
1) Change your last name to Aaron.
2) Move to Cambridge, MA.
3) Get a listed telephone number.
As I said, a lot to ask, but it would be cool if you did it.