From ABCnews.com
Medical Bankruptcies: A Data-Check
March 05, 2009 12:37 PM
(3 p.m. update: See italicized items with responses from the lead author of the Harvard study, Dr. David Himmelstein.)
President Obama's kicking off his health care reform today in the worst possible way: with a mischaracterization of data.
"The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds," Obama said at the opening of his White House forum on health care reform. The problem: That claim, based on a 2001 survey, is simply unsupportable.
The figure comes from a 2005 Harvard University study saying that 54 percent of bankruptcies in 2001 were caused by health expenses. We reviewed it internally and knocked it down at the time; an academic reviewer did the same in 2006. Recalculating Harvard's own data, he came up with a far lower figure – 17 percent.
A more recent study by another group, approaching it another way, indicates that in 2007 about eight-tenths of one percent of Americans lived in families that filed for bankruptcy as a result of medical costs. That rings a little less loudly than "one every 30 seconds."
The extrapolation of Harvard's data to "a bankruptcy every 30 seconds," which Obama also mentioned in his address to a joint session of Congress last month, comes, per the White House, from a 2005 Washington Post op-ed by Prof. Elizabeth Warren, a co-author of the Harvard paper. Fact-check.org has noted that even using Harvard's numbers, it's more like a bankruptcy every minute; indeed if you add up all bankrputcies in a year you barely get one every 30 seconds. (I've e-mailed Warren for comment.) But more to the point is that the Harvard data are clearly inflated, or at best, mischaracterized.
Himmelstein tells me that the reason for the difference is a change in federal law that sharply reduced the number of bankruptcies. In 2005, the year he and Warren wrote their op-ed, there were just over 2 million bankruptcies. Data out just today say that in 2008 there were 1.1 million (up sharply, by the way, over 2007). So this error in the White House claim stems simply from the fact that it's using out-of-date information. The next question is whether the estimate of "medical bankruptcies" is reliable in the first place.
A good part of the problem is definitional. The Harvard report claims to measure the extent to which medical costs are "the cause" of bankruptcies. In reality its survey asked if these costs were "a reason" – potentially one of many – for such bankruptcies.
Beyond those who gave medical costs as "a reason," the Harvard researchers chose to add in any bankruptcy filers who had at least $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses in the previous two years. Given deductibles and copays, that's a heck of a lot of people.
Moreover, Harvard's definition of "medical" expenses includes situations that aren't necessarily medical in common parlance, e.g., a gambling problem, or the death of a family member. If your main wage-earning spouse gets hit by a bus and dies, and you have to file, that's included as a "medical bankruptcy."
When I asked the lead author, Dr. David Himmelstein, about his definitions of medical bankruptcy back in 2005, he said, "It's a judgment call," and added that any death, for example, "to our mind is a medical event."
A last problem was sampling: The Harvard researchers surveyed bankruptcy filers in five federal court districts accounting for 14 percent of bankruptcies nationally; projecting this to the other 86 percent is sketchy. Said Himmelstein: "Obviously the extrapolation is rough."
Of such rough extrapolations are presidential pronouncements made.
Himmelstein today told me that he's comfortable saying medical costs, as his study defines them, are "a cause" but not "the cause" of bankruptcies. In his view, "It's accurate to say medical problems cause half of bankruptcies. There may be other conditions as well but medical problems were causal. I wouldn't be comfortable with it as the 'only' cause."
Worth keeping in mind is the fact that no one (apparently) disagrees about the pain medical expenses can cause to uninsured Americans. Prof. David Dranove of Northwestern University, who wrote the 2006 paper picking apart the Harvard study, noted that he has a new paper in the works showing that uninsured people who have a severe illness lose a substantial portion of their retirement assets.
"There is general agreement: Being uninsured and getting sick in the United States is really a bad thing," Dranove told me today. "But for academics the validity of the research matters." In the Harvard paper, he says, "The methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured – they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method."
There's been a fair amount of academic back-biting about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000 from the nation's health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it's engendered. Both papers were peer-reviewed.
"It stinks to be uninsured. I don't want to be quoted saying anything else," Dranove says. "But there are correct studies, and incorrect studies. For academics, the validity of the research methods matters."
It should for the rest of us, too.
Himmelstein's referred me to a 2006 paper in which he replied to Dranove, whom he accuses of "several out and out errors." Says Himmelstein: "They were paid by the insurance industry to make this critique... They were hired guns out to try and make a point, and used a variety of illegitimate techniques to make that point."
Science marches on.
(...and a 4 p.m. update: Elizabeth Warren, Himmelstein's co-author, is serving as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP. Per spokeswoman Shanan Guinn, she's not currently giving interviews on her previous research.)
March 5, 2009 | Permalink | User Comments (245)
I found the link to it. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2009/03/medical-bankrup.html ^
So what?
Hum, Obama say's something wrong and the Dem's say, "so what". If Bush did that he got called all kinds of stupid, a liar, and what ever else. What's wrong with this picture? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on March 06, 2009, 11:17:33 AM
Hum, Obama say's something wrong and the Dem's say, "so what". If Bush did that he got called all kinds of stupid, a liar, and what ever else. What's wrong with this picture? :rolleyes:
The difference is obvious to any thinking person; Bush
is stupid and
is a liar.
And Nancy Pelosi is wonderful. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on March 06, 2009, 11:53:28 AM
And Nancy Pelosi is wonderful. :rolleyes:
She's done a lot more with her life than you have. :biggrin:
Any your point is?
Quote from: me on March 06, 2009, 12:03:16 PM
Any your point is?
About as interesting as the point this topic attempts to make.
GG you still are stuck on spreading the fear ?..That went out the door with Bushie.. :yes: Lordy girl wake up!
Quote from: WVaGAL on March 07, 2009, 08:57:33 PM
GG you still are stuck on spreading the fear ?..That went out the door with Bushie.. :yes: Lordy girl wake up!
Didn't bother to read the article did ya?
Quote from: WVaGAL on March 07, 2009, 08:57:33 PM
GG you still are stuck on spreading the fear ?..That went out the door with Bushie.. :yes: Lordy girl wake up!
Seems like the ones spreading the most fear are President Obama and his friends about the financial crisis our country faces. Maybe he should be the one to lighten up. I do give him credit, he did say he believes in America. It is interesting that he doesn't think there are any more terrorists, only extremists. I guess the public can only take one kind of fear at a time.
So, you're denying that there's a financial crisis?
Not denying it, just that when Mr. Bush was warning us about terrorists there was a great hue and cry about scare tactics. When President Obama does the same thing only about finances it is not seen at least by the media as such. Double standard, imo. Do you deny that there are terrorists who would attack us if they could?
Quote from: Anne on March 08, 2009, 05:57:25 PM
Not denying it, just that when Mr. Bush was warning us about terrorists there was a great hue and cry about scare tactics. When President Obama does the same thing only about finances it is not seen at least by the media as such. Double standard, imo. Do you deny that there are terrorists who would attack us if they could?
There will always be terrorists that want to attack our country and it's nothing new. Bush utilized the fear created by the events of 9/11 to con the American people into feeling good about the expense and our involvement in a war in a country where we didn't need to be. Iraq and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with each other.
Not a double standard - two different things all together.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2009, 08:45:41 PM
There will always be terrorists that want to attack our country and it's nothing new. Bush utilized the fear created by the events of 9/11 to con the American people into feeling good about the expense and our involvement in a war in a country where we didn't need to be. Iraq and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with each other.
Not a double standard - two different things all together.
Wanting to and actually being able to are two different things. Didn't you notice that no one did attack for 7yrs? Isn't that something to feel good about?
Quote from: me on March 08, 2009, 09:02:46 PM
Wanting to and actually being able to are two different things. Didn't you notice that no one did attack for 7yrs? Isn't that something to feel good about?
:koolaid: Have another sip.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2009, 09:04:22 PM
:koolaid: Have another sip.
So you think we would have been better off to just carry on talking and negotiating while they blew up our buildings and killed innocent people over here. I suppose you don' think the military should have been built back up either.
Quote from: me on March 08, 2009, 09:08:54 PM
So you think we would have been better off to just carry on talking and negotiating while they blew up our buildings and killed innocent people over here. I suppose you don' think the military should have been built back up either.
Exactly how did our presence in Iraq prevent this?
Keeping our citizenry safe and secure is the government's number one function and priority. Having said that, Homeland Security is a big, bad bulldog that is someday going to bite us ALL in the ass. :(
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2009, 10:38:06 PM
Exactly how did our presence in Iraq prevent this?
You have been given that answer numerous times by different people. Why do you think we weren't attacked?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2009, 08:45:41 PM
Not a double standard - two different things all together.
No fair using logic!
Quote from: me on March 08, 2009, 09:02:46 PM
Wanting to and actually being able to are two different things. Didn't you notice that no one did attack for 7yrs? Isn't that something to feel good about?
Yeah, that's wonderful but he was president for 8 years.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2009, 08:45:41 PM
There will always be terrorists that want to attack our country and it's nothing new. Bush utilized the fear created by the events of 9/11 to con the American people into feeling good about the expense and our involvement in a war in a country where we didn't need to be. Iraq and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with each other.
Not a double standard - two different things all together.
No they aren't. Instilling fear in people is the same no matter what the reason. Do you really think anyone felt good about being in Iraq? That is like saying people felt good about being in Vietnam. No one I knew then or now felt good about either one. Some felt it was necessary, but never good. At any rate the aim of instilling fear over anything is is to gain power over someone, Mr. Bush got to go into Iraq and President Obama gets to spend trillions of dollars on entitlements while telling us it will create jobs and make the economy better. Hopefully it isn't a pipe dream.
"me" no one has ever been able to provide proof that the war in Iraq has prevented terror here. Think about it...why would invading a country that had noting to do with 9/11 prevent terror? Anne, apples and oranges.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 10:04:38 AM
"me" no one has ever been able to provide proof that the war in Iraq has prevented terror here. Think about it...why would invading a country thay had noting to do with 9/11 prevent terror? Anne, apples and oranges.
Isn't the fact we haven't been attacked proof enough? You didn't answer my question ya know. Why do you think we weren't attacked. You must have an opinion since you have the opinion that us going to Iraq had nothing to do with it and just because ain't gonna get it.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 10:04:38 AM
"me" no one has ever been able to provide proof that the war in Iraq has prevented terror here. Think about it...why would invading a country that had noting to do with 9/11 prevent terror? Anne, apples and oranges.
Another one of those things that we will always disagree about. Imo, trying to make people fearful of something is a power play no matter what your objective is.
Quote from: Anne on March 09, 2009, 08:54:00 AM
No they aren't. Instilling fear in people is the same no matter what the reason.
And will ultimately have exactly the same result.
QuoteDo you really think anyone felt good about being in Iraq? That is like saying people felt good about being in Vietnam. No one I knew then or now felt good about either one. Some felt it was necessary, but never good.
Both have accomplished the same thing: nothing.
QuoteAt any rate the aim of instilling fear over anything is is to gain power over someone, Mr. Bush got to go into Iraq and President Obama gets to spend trillions of dollars on entitlements while telling us it will create jobs and make the economy better. Hopefully it isn't a pipe dream.
Please explain to us how the bulk of the economic stimulus plan falls into the category of 'entitlements'.
Quote from: me on March 09, 2009, 10:10:10 AM
Isn't the fact we haven't been attacked proof enough?
No; the two have no direct relationship.
QuoteWhy do you think we weren't attacked.
Because it isn't necessary. One attack was apparently all it takes to get us to abandon our principles and ignore our constitution.
why is it that everyone forgets WHY we attacked Iraq?
It was spelled out by the Clinton Administration...CLEARLY!
Bush actually carried out what SHOULD have been carried out by Clinton....
It was voted upon ALMOST unanimously by the house AND the senate....
the UN agreed that military action was needed....
NOBODY ever said there was a direct connection between the two.............but, it was declared that Iraq WAS a threat..........and AFTER 9/11........President Bush did NOT take lightly to threats....and did what HE felt was best for this country........and EVERYBODY agreed until things got tough!...and THEN everybody turned against him....and started pointing fingers.
THAT is EXACTLY what happened....period.
Both have accomplished the same thing: nothing.
No, in Vietnam we lost, and the communists won, in Iraq we changed the government of that country.
Please explain to us how the bulk of the economic stimulus plan falls into the category of 'entitlements'.
[/quote]
Maybe earmarks would be a better word for the stimulus plan, but I was referring to all of the other things he is proposing such as free college, more welfare, etc. Take your pick.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 12:21:34 PM
why is it that everyone forgets WHY we attacked Iraq?
It was spelled out by the Clinton Administration...CLEARLY!
Bush actually carried out what SHOULD have been carried out by Clinton....
It was voted upon ALMOST unanimously by the house AND the senate....
the UN agreed that military action was needed....
NOBODY ever said there was a direct connection between the two.............but, it was declared that Iraq WAS a threat..........and AFTER 9/11........President Bush did NOT take lightly to threats....and did what HE felt was best for this country........and EVERYBODY agreed until things got tough!...and THEN everybody turned against him....and started pointing fingers.
THAT is EXACTLY what happened....period.
(Bolded)- When did they do that Henry? As far as I recall the UN issued no resolution in support of the US initiative in Iraq; in fact I believe they came out against such action????
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2009, 12:27:38 PM
(Bolded)- When did they do that Henry? As far as I recall the UN issued no resolution in support of the US initiative in Iraq; in fact I believe they came out against such action????
1441 was a resolution that was adopted....
unanimously by the
United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
what does FINAL mean in this case?............seriously?.......the security counsil gave saddam at least ten previous resolutions!!...Bush along with the UN...gave him ONE more!!...and Saddam blew it off AGIAN.....and President Bush ACTUCALY carried out the final threat.....the way one would expect!...it was voted upon by congress........Great Britain along with Spain AND others, that ACTION needed to be taken.....the UN is a joke!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 12:44:32 PM
1441 was a resolution that was adopted....unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
what does FINAL mean in this case?............seriously?.......the security counsil gave saddam at least ten previous resolutions!!...Bush along with the UN...gave him ONE more!!...and Saddam blew it off AGIAN.....and President Bush ACTUCALY carried out the final threat.....the way one would expect!...it was voted upon by congress........Great Britain along with Spain AND others, that ACTION needed to be taken.....the UN is a joke!
I don't disagree that the UN is a joke. You already know my opinion of them; "paper tiger" and Saddam knew it.
However, your statement implied that they supported the military action utilized by the US and they did not. In fact the UN wanted to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi issue, and was quite forceful in their communication of that fact to the POTUS and congress. . .
No need for the riding crop! :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 12:21:34 PM
why is it that everyone forgets WHY we attacked Iraq?
We haven't; we attacked Iraq because the administration intentionally lied and made them appear a threat.
QuoteIt was spelled out by the Clinton Administration...CLEARLY!
Bush actually carried out what SHOULD have been carried out by Clinton....
Wrong.
QuoteIt was voted upon ALMOST unanimously by the house AND the senate....
No, the House and the Senate voted not to take responsibility by usurping the
Constitutional mandate for them to declare war.
Quotethe UN agreed that military action was needed....
No, they didn't.
QuoteNOBODY ever said there was a direct connection between the two....
Bullshit, Bush absolutely made that connection not once but several times. You're either pathetically uninformed or a liar.
Quote.........but, it was declared that Iraq WAS a threat....
Really? How were they a threat? They couldn't even hit us with a scud missile when we were 50 km away.
Quote......and AFTER 9/11........President Bush did NOT take lightly to threats....and did what HE felt was best for this country...
No, Bush did what he thought was necessary to make himself feel better about having such a small dick.
Quote.....and EVERYBODY agreed until things got tough!...and THEN everybody turned against him....and started pointing fingers.
Nope; it was clear to all thinking people long before we went into Iraq what was happening: Bush fully intended to invade that country regardless of the circumstances and no amount of Saddam jumping through hoops was ever going to change it.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2009, 12:56:34 PM
I don't disagree that the UN is a joke. You already know my opinion of them; "paper tiger" and Saddam knew it.
However, your statement implied that they supported the military action utilized by the US and they did not. In fact the UN wanted to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi issue, and was quite forceful in their communication of that fact to the POTUS and congress. . .
No need for the riding crop! :biggrin:
let me say it this way........to most of the logical thinking world.........."serious consequences" does NOT mean give them ONE MORE CHANCE!!..and THAT is what 1441 said!........to me, it was finally nice for the United States and Great Britian to stand behind a threat....and act upon it....
and if we would have had the SURGE immediatly after the initally attack it would NOT have lasted this long.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2009, 12:56:34 PM
However, your statement implied that they supported the military action utilized by the US and they did not. In fact the UN wanted to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi issue, and was quite forceful in their communication of that fact to the POTUS and congress. . .
Do you really expect for him to be able to understand that?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 01:03:41 PM
let me say it this way........to most of the logical thinking world.........."serious consequences" does NOT mean give them ONE MORE CHANCE!!..and THAT is what 1441 said!........to me, it was finally nice for the United States and Great Britian to stand behind a threat....and act upon it....
LMMFAO! You are speaking for the 'logical, thinking' world?
Quote...and if we would have had the SURGE immediatly after the initally attack it would NOT have lasted this long.
Oh, look...the dude who never even saw fit to put on a uniform and serve his country is now suddenly a brilliant military strategist!
Quote from: Anne on March 09, 2009, 12:24:48 PM
No, in Vietnam we lost, and the communists won, in Iraq we changed the government of that country.
We deposed an Islamic theocracy and then the Iraqis voted to replace it with an Islamic theocracy. I'm not seeing the big change.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
We haven't; we attacked Iraq because the administration intentionally lied and made them appear a threat.
well, that is not what Clintons, Albright and practically ALL of the Clinton Administration AND congress felt...
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
Wrong.
RIGHT!
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
No, the House and the Senate voted not to take responsibility by usurping the Constitutional mandate for them to declare war.
well THEY got it wrong then...
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
No, they didn't.
they declared "serious consequences"..what was that supposed to mean after 10 resolutions?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
Bullshit, Bush absolutely made that connection not once but several times. You're either pathetically uninformed or a liar.
show me!........where exactly he connected Iraq AND 9/11....he always declared them (al qada) as a threat to the US and/or it's allies....
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
Really? How were they a threat? They couldn't even hit us with a scud missile when we were 50 km away..
again go ask Clinton's crew.......and Intelligence and Syria and .......really this list can go on and on....if you want me to...
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
No, Bush did what he thought was necessary to make himself feel better about having such a small dick...
wow!!! that was an extremely well thought out response....about the best you can come up with?.. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
Nope; it was clear to all thinking people long before we went into Iraq what was happening: Bush fully intended to invade that country regardless of the circumstances and no amount of Saddam jumping through hoops was ever going to change it...
he already jumped through at least 10 hoops (resolutions)...the only mistake Bush made, in my opinion, was he was lead to believe that this would be a quick invasion...in/out........and our intelligence miscaluclated our enemy.........and Bush SHOULD have demanded a SURGE right AFTER this was figured out.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 01:16:28 PM
wow!!! that was an extremely well thought out response....about the best you can come up with?.. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you and he share that trait.
You're a liar, Henry, and too ignorant to see, even in retrospect, what a lying scumbag Bush is. Birds of a feather...
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:08:16 PM
We deposed an Islamic theocracy and then the Iraqis voted to replace it with an Islamic theocracy. I'm not seeing the big change.
Who is the dictator in Iraq now, and please don't say something stupid like the US.
Quote from: Anne on March 09, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
Who is the dictator in Iraq now, and please don't say something stupid like the US.
You're being obtuse. The fundamentals of their government have not changed...by their own choice.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:34:20 PM
You're being obtuse. The fundamentals of their government have not changed...by their own choice.
How can now haveing a dictator and electing their government be the same. They may choose to have the same laws and religion but they have the choice to change it if they wish. You are being obtuse.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 01:22:57 PM
I'm guessing you and he share that trait.
You're a liar, Henry, and too ignorant to see, even in retrospect, what a lying scumbag Bush is. Birds of a feather...
Well, I am NO liar.....I'm sure I am ignorant in your eyes.....and Bush may or may not be a scumbag....but I tell you, I am glad he was my President in lieu of the alternatives that we had to pick from...
and THIS is from a guy who was SO successful, the best place he could find to live was on Van Buskirk?...In Anderson?... ;D
Wow THAT was impressive... :razz:
Office of Special Plans report
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 01:53:27 PM
Well, I am NO liar.....I'm sure I am ignorant in your eyes.....and Bush may or may not be a scumbag....but I tell you, I am glad he was my President in lieu of the alternatives that we had to pick from...
Intentionally spreading false information is lying.
Quote...and THIS is from a guy who was SO successful, the best place he could find to live was on Van Buskirk?...In Anderson?... ;D Wow THAT was impressive... :razz:
I guess you must not even know much about your own little one-horse town if you aren't familiar with the typical level of homes in VanBuskirk Heights.
Um, sucess has nothing to do with an address and neither does intellect. I'm surprised you'd stoop to such a lowbrow and meaningless discussion point, Henry.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 02:19:55 PM
Um, sucess has nothing to do with an address and neither does intellect. I'm surprised you'd stoop to such a lowbrow and meaningless discussion point, Henry.
Even if it did, he's wrong...it's one of the more affluent areas of Anderson.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 02:19:55 PM
Um, sucess has nothing to do with an address and neither does intellect. I'm surprised you'd stoop to such a lowbrow and meaningless discussion point, Henry.
Ya know Ex never misses a chance to tell us how uneducated we are and how he is sooooo much better than we are he deserved that remark. :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 02:53:59 PM
Even if it did, he's wrong...it's one of the more affluent areas of Anderson.
Parts of it are not all of it. :razz:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 02:19:55 PM
Um, sucess has nothing to do with an address and neither does intellect. I'm surprised you'd stoop to such a lowbrow and meaningless discussion point, Henry.
your right Sandy.... :yes:....I DID lower myself to Ex's level.......and for that I am embarrassed... :-[
I just got caught up in HIS type of meaningless attacks..
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 02:53:59 PM
Even if it did, he's wrong...it's one of the more affluent areas of Anderson.
for Anderson, it IS affluent...I have a personal friend who lives there...and it is NOT nearly as affluent as it was back in the 70's....
me, I considered supporting evidence before I commented and there isn't a connection between someone's home and their intellect. :razz: Ex, I got it, but that was so silly that I just couldn't help myself.
Henry, I believe that's called that the Kindergarten defense. :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 03:37:56 PM
Henry, I believe that's called that the Kindergarten defense. :biggrin:
BUT HE IS A BIG FAT KOODY BUG!!!.........AND NO-CHANGE BACKS!!!.. :rant:
UH......... I'm mean..............i'm sorry.. :-[
Actually, I'm sorry...it wasn't my business.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 03:12:20 PM
for Anderson, it IS affluent...I have a personal friend who lives there...and it is NOT nearly as affluent as it was back in the 70's....
Yeah, my house reeked of poverty:
(http://keithgro.ipower.com//File0026.jpg)
I bet everybody was jealous of you there in north anderson.... :yes:
I'm glad to see that you could afford a room big enough for your head to fit in... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 04:27:55 PM
I bet everybody was jealous of you there in north anderson.... :yes:
I'm glad to see that you could afford a room big enough for your head to fit in... :yes:
:biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2009, 04:27:55 PM
I bet everybody was jealous of you there in north anderson.... :yes:
And I would care why?
Quote from: Anne on March 09, 2009, 11:44:06 AM
Another one of those things that we will always disagree about. Imo, trying to make people fearful of something is a power play no matter what your objective is.
I still disagree. Can you really blame the messenger if the circumstances are dire? Our country is in an economic mess. If he said that and it scared you, then it should have. As for the invasion of IRAQ it's pretty clear that we had no business there and GWB used the memory of those poor victims to sell it. One is real and the other is smoke and mirrors. Apples and oranges.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 09, 2009, 05:53:17 PM
And I would care why?
because your ego is the size of idaho..........
(http://www.csuchico.edu/recsports/images/fencing.jpg)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2009, 08:04:03 AM
because your ego is the size of idaho..........
And with your imagined understanding of the world around you, you posit that yours is not?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 10, 2009, 08:20:28 AM
And with your imagined understanding of the world around you, you posit that yours is not?
whatever skippy
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2009, 08:24:26 AM
whatever skippy
Back atcha, zippy. (http://www.zippythepinhead.com/pages/aacast.html)
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 09, 2009, 11:31:50 PM
I still disagree. Can you really blame the messenger if the circumstances are dire? Our country is in an economic mess. If he said that and it scared you, then it should have. As for the invasion of IRAQ it's pretty clear that we had no business there and GWB used the memory of those poor victims to sell it. One is real and the other is smoke and mirrors. Apples and oranges.
As I said, on this we will probably always disagree.
I am curious, what tactic is Polisi and other politicians using to screw us royally. They have spent more money in the last 2 months than the last 5 years. They have made it apparent that they don't care what the american voters want, they know what is best for us. Nancy has sold us down the river big time. She is linked with the Sierra Club and all other eco-nuts in California. She has let her power go to her pin head and is doing harm to us all. Just think if something did happen to President Obama and Vice president Biden, she would be next in line. Doesn't that make you sleep well. NOT
Quote from: mcgonser on March 10, 2009, 04:16:56 PM
I am curious, what tactic is Polisi and other politicians using to screw us royally. They have spent more money in the last 2 months than the last 5 years. They have made it apparent that they don't care what the american voters want, they know what is best for us. Nancy has sold us down the river big time. She is linked with the Sierra Club and all other eco-nuts in California. She has let her power go to her pin head and is doing harm to us all. Just think if something did happen to President Obama and Vice president Biden, she would be next in line. Doesn't that make you sleep well. NOT
:eek:
maybe obama got the ratio wrong, but it seems that he was using the only data he had to work with.
i work with the poor. what i see is that a huge number of them have medical expenses that have been sent to collections, judgements, etc. and that is what many of them file bankruptcy for is to do away with them. many times they will wait years before doing so. in in the meantime they cannot accrue assets. usually they are underemployed or may work 2 or 3 pt jobs, or seasonal or temp jobs. they do well to feed their families. in our state just because someone is economically disadvantaged does not mean they are eligible for medicaid. there are other eligibility requirements for coverage.