Ridiculous claim by the AARP
that 1.85 million Americans go bankrupt every year due to medical bills. In other words, the AARP is claiming that every single bankruptcy in the U.S. is due to medical bills. Even Elizabeth Warren doesn't go that far. The AARP has launched a mass media campaign, including television ads, based on this blatantly dishonest premise. One can only hope it will damage its credibility.
It makes sense: the Black Amerikan who pays into Social Security for 45 years dies, on average, at 69, enjoying only 3 years of "benefits." He will rest well in heaven, however, thinking of all those White widows of 62 to 114 who, though they might NEVER have worked, are enjoying the fruits of his labors.
Listen and keep track to find that every person in this country is constantly at imminent risk of something. Keep that money and supprt flowing; Please, it's for ...
I guess fact checking is for nerds.
1)Are they using "bankrupt" as a legal term as would a lawyer, or merely as a way to describe financial collapse? For example, I commonly say that I was "bankrupt" during grad school because I wracked up debt and my bills were more money than I had. I never filed for legal bankruptcy, however.
2)By specifying individuals rather than households, they leave it open to interpreting that if the Johnson family files for bankruptcy, the spouse and the 4 kids are also bankrupt. So one bankruptcy = 6 individuals.
AARGH!
However, no matter how hard they have tried over the years, I haven't sent them any more money, for just these sorts of reasons. And most of the places that have AARP discounts now seem to have equivalent AAA discounts, and I get three free 100 mile tows a year with my AAA membership along with unlimited maps and travel guides. Finally, I still have my old AARP card somewhere in my wallet just in case I need it for discounts.
...nevermind.
Medical expenses are extremely common and are almost overwhelmingly incurred on credit. Meanwhile, people who go bankrupt pretty much stop paying all their bills.
Thus, according to the AARP, all of these subprime borrowers who overleveraged and filed bankruptcy would be included as medical expense bankruptcies by virtue of their $100 unpaid eye doctor bills, etc.
It's the great shame of this country that you can't get honest economics without social bigotry, and sometimes even not then.
John Neff: Does that mean you're not going to bother doing the fact checking?
pls lern2english, David.
I don't know if that's necessarily true - the 50% stat seems to be bogus, per Todd's post, but if it was widely reported in the media, you can at least see where the AARP got it. Also, even though the AARP is numbering people, it's conceivable that ~4 people could have the same story (they don't give 1.85 million stories, just a few). I'm not defending the number by any means, but I think this might give some explanation other than blatant falsity.
I'd much rather go bankrupt than die!
Fail.
OK. I see it. Thanks.
Somehow, though, I can't see the AARP arguing for dismantling the Medicare system in order to prevent Americans from bankrupting themselves over medical bills....
I don't.
Eh, they're probably going to go away anyway when the elderly dole collapses from gene therapy. Either that or they'll be leading the charge for 80% marginal rates.
The AARP ad clearly implies that there are 1.85 million people who filed bankruptcy, not just 1.85 million people who are broke because of medical bills. Each one of the people featured in the "Hear their stories" section is someone who actually filed a bankruptcy petition. So the implication is clearly deceptive. Whether it is incompetence or intentional, I have no idea.
That said, medical bills are a major cause of bankruptcy. In my opinion, they (and the time off work they cause) probably cause around 20-25% of bankruptcies. BAPCPA makes bankruptcy much more difficult for these debtors. There's enough ammo here, I don't know why the AARP has to fudge the stats.
The average American lives about 70 years. At a bankruptcy filing rate of about one third of a percent per year, about 20% of all Americans would declare bankruptcy at least once during their lifetime. Is this right? I would guess that the rates are off by a factor of ten.
I'm shocked I tell you - shocked!
I don't know if this number reaches to 1.85 million per year, but that's the number to be arguing over. Nor would I be greatly relieved to learn that the correct figure is only, say, 1.1 million.
Life expectancy is longer in countries with universal health care. The issue is why we spend more for less in the US
It seems to be incorrect whether they meant "every year" or "in some year" but I wonder what they were actually trying to say.
R!
(The arithmetic is: $ (1-0.0052)^{75} \approx 2/3 $
(2) A certain chess grandmaster said "I've never beaten a wholly well man." Or as my father used to say "You can always find a stick to beat a dog." I'm sure almost every single bankrupt had at least one medical bill. But as my father also said "It wasn't the last straw that broke the camel's back, it was the combined weight of all the straws."
(3) I also forgot who said "AARP, 50 million Americans united by their love of discounts."
(4) I got kicked out of the Massachusetts militia earlier this summer, so I've got 4 years to go before I get my discounts.
(5) I'm glad to see bankruptcies are back up, only because it demonstrates that so much of the sharp decline after reform was due to used-up demand from those who filed before reform; also in most cases the reform just delayed the inevitable; and as hardly anyone says "Bankruptcy more difficult, home foreclosures up -- coincidence? I think not." But now you get to lose your house and then go bankrupt.
(6) Elizabeth Warren is right that something is wrong. And don't give me that "houses are bigger now" excuse -- I live in a house built in 1955, on the same street as where my father-in-law bought then, I've got a more marketable degree than my father, and my American dream is just not happening.
Ameryx:
No one thinks that "social science" is a science. The way that it is used these days it isn't even applied statistics. So instead of junk science- just junk.
Leave the junk science label for something that at least has the veneer of a science- like Global Warming.
I think you are assuming incorrectly here. My guess would be the opposite and that people who end up bankrupt once are much more likely than the average person to end up bankrupt again later in life. Off the top of my head I have no idea where to start looking for stats to back that guess up since a quick search show lots of stats on the total number, type, and location of filings for various years, but nothing on the type of person who files. Maybe a bankruptcy lawyer could enlighten us.
Back in college a friend of mine got a mailer inviting him to join the AARP when he was about 20 and decided to join. He filled out the application with all of his correct information including birthdate and they let him in. Then he tried using his card to get discounts. Only a few places actually believed he was a member, but he said the membership fee eventually paid for itself. I have gotten several invitation to join as well and I am only 31.
or, put another way:
a socialized medical system provides some short term benefits for a huge long-term downside. What reasonable person would opt for something like that?
Oh yeah, one who's going to die soon.
http://www.americanseniors.org
Hate to break it to you, but you are going to die.
And while no one is proposing anything remotely like Britain's NHS, the life expectancy in the UK is still slightly higher than are own, so the NHS doesn't seem to be killing very many people off before their time.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.