Did anyone else think it odd that Mary Lou Retton, now 55, (aka "America's Sweetheart") and the first woman to grace the cover of the Wheaties box wound up begging for money to pay her medical bills? Her daughter started a gofundme with a target of $50k and they quickly raised more than $420k. Why wouldn't someone like MLR not have health insurance or be able to pay her own way? The family was quick to request privacy when faced with such questions; that brings me to another thing that annoys me about some gofundme efforts. People are quick to ask for privacy even as they ask for money. If privacy is your primacy concern then keep you money troubles to yourself and pay your own way—do NOT turn to the public and beg. If you are going to beg the public you should be prepared to answer some obvious questions.
Mary Lou Retton's lack of insurance raises questions as crowdfunding reaches $421,000
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/10/11/mary-lou-rettons-lack-of-insurance-raises-questions-as-crowdfunding-passes-250000/
You only have to scam people once in your life, to become a multi-millionaire. I'm guessing that was the intent of MLR and the family of MLR, but 1/2 million didn't really get them anywhere near their goal.
I wondered the same thing. NO INSURANCE!?!?!?
As long as giving money on Gofundme is voluntary, I see no problem.
No problem? Individual private citizens/ families should no more be allowed to scam people on GoFundMe than big corporations can on tv commercials.
Many former athletes blow through their money very quickly. Also, in those days, I don't think even someone as well known would have even made that much total. She was an amateur athlete, then had a few sponsorships that were likely gone in less than 4 years until the next star came a long.
I wouldn't be surprised if many former athletes have no insurance even if they have money. Those with money just pay as they go. The ones without just suffer.
I'm not saying that I know that this *isn't* a scam. I just wouldn't be surprised if it were completely honest.
I am willing to believe Wikipedia for the big picture since it cites its sources.
This is what it says about MLR's endorsements:
QuoteCompensated endorsements
During the 1990s, Retton worked as a spokeswoman, appearing in advertisements for the U.S. drugstore chain Revco.[21]
Retton has many commercial endorsements, including bowling and shampoo.[22] She was the first female athlete to be pictured on the front of a Wheaties box, and General Mills stated that Wheaties sales improved after her appearance.[23][24][25] In 2019, Retton became a spokesperson for Australian Dream, a pain relief cream. She is a frequent analyst for televised gymnastics and attended The University of Texas at Austin after the Olympics.[26]
On Amazon, Australian Dream cream ranks
QuoteBest Sellers Rank: #8,197 in Health & Household (See Top 100 in Health & Household)
#34 in Joint & Muscle Pain Relief Rubs
#1,266 in Sales & Deals
So, okay, it sells, but this is hardly like an endorsement for American Express or another Fortune 500 company, and that was almost 25 years ago. I've never heard of "Revco."
She has had some sporadic media appearances, and I think these would pay far less than we might expect them to:
QuoteFilm and TV appearances
1985: ABC Funfit; hosted a series of five-minute segments on physical fitness which were broadcast between Saturday morning cartoons.[29]
1988: Scrooged; as herself.[30]
1992: Knots Landing; as herself in the episode "Letting Go".[31]
1993: Baywatch; in the episode "The Child Inside".[32]
1994: An Evening at the Improv; as herself.[33]
1994: Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult; as herself.[34]
2002: Mary Lou's Flip Flop Shop.[35]
2010: Glee; in the episode "Grilled Cheesus" Sue Sylvester refers to Mary Lou Retton as her worst enemy.[36]
2014: RadioShack Super Bowl XLVIII commercial "The '80s Called"; cameo appearance.[37]
2018: Appeared as a contestant on 27th season of Dancing with the Stars, partnered with Sasha Farber. Eliminated Week 6 – 9th Place[38]
Honestly, I think the world kind of forgot about MLR until this business.
I don't know if she has been working 9-to-5 somewhere, but it is believable that she is out of money. Many Americans can't put their hands on more than $400 at one time anymore.
MLR did ads for Depends. And she is younger than me.
Boy, that was depressing.
She did have a 9k sq ft mansion in Houston she was offering for sale last year. She had to have some assets.
It is of course possible this is scam, perpetrated by one or more of her children whilst she was unconscious.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 30, 2023, 09:30:03 PMShe did have a 9k sq ft mansion in Houston she was offering for sale last year. She had to have some assets.
It is of course possible this is scam, perpetrated by one or more of her children whilst she was unconscious.
Well, if she did have millions, and this is her house, (https://www.homedit.com/mary-lou-retton-in-houston-home/) we might see where her fortune went.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 30, 2023, 09:35:35 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on October 30, 2023, 09:30:03 PMShe did have a 9k sq ft mansion in Houston she was offering for sale last year. She had to have some assets.
It is of course possible this is scam, perpetrated by one or more of her children whilst she was unconscious.
Well, if she did have millions, and this is her house, (https://www.homedit.com/mary-lou-retton-in-houston-home/) we might see where her fortune went.
This does NOT pass the smell test. I wonder if her donors would have been so quick to donate had they seen photos of the 9000 sq ft mansion she listed for sale last year. She literally had millions in endorsements! Where did that money go? And why didn't she have health insurance at a time when the Affordable Care Act makes it effectively available to everyone? I wish her good health, but this solicitation for cash has the stench of chicanery and/or inexcusable irresponsibility.
See, I would be a little hesitant to pass judgment just yet----I mean, she sold the house, right? Which sounds like money problems for a rich person.
As I said, it looks to me like she may have made a boatload of money 30 years ago, but where has she been since? Even millions fritter away if you are living the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Johnny Depp I would absolutely be suspicious of. Mary Lou is famous for my generation, but after that, Mary Who? And then one gets sick... I know that my dad's cancer treatments cost almost a million dollars; even if he sold everything in his estate, he wouldn't have been able to pay all that; insurance actually worked the way it is supposed to.
Maybe this is somebody's scam. Or maybe not.
https://www.jacksonprogress-argus.com/arena/parade/mary-lou-rettons-net-worth-in-2023-and-why-she-had-to-crowdfund-her-medical/article_db3bcf78-9243-5c3a-bc3a-f5cf03d49869.html
IF ONLY there was a law that would require people from all walks of life and incomes to have health insurance so that they do not become burdens to society. The government could even subsidize low income people afford the policies.
(Oh wait.... it was struck down)
Quote from: clean on October 31, 2023, 09:17:03 AMIF ONLY there was a law that would require people from all walks of life and incomes to have health insurance so that they do not become burdens to society. The government could even subsidize low income people afford the policies.
(Oh wait.... it was struck down)
Or, the government could even PAY for it for everyone from general revenue. Can you imagine if any country on earth tried that???
(Oh wait.... almost all of them do)
The Affordable Care Act is still on the books. Nothing was "struck down" by a court. Rather, the "'tax' on not having insurance" was voted out of the law.
While there is a moral hazard argument for coercion here, the Act has nevertheless been effective. Lower income people are indeed subsidized. In 2022 92.1% of the population had some form of health insurance.
Share with health insurance (https://www.statista.com/statistics/200958/percentage-of-americans-with-health-insurance/#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20people%20in%20the%20United%20States,insurance%2C%20compared%20to%20around%2084%20percent%20in%202010.)
To return to Gofundme, the lady not having health insurance is anomalous. But no deception was undertaken, and as I said, donating was voluntary. So this is a non-problem.
But you do not know this. You are an economist, so you know all about the dangers of 'asymmetric information'. Grifters count on this all the time.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 31, 2023, 09:29:49 PMBut you do not know this. You are an economist, so you know all about the dangers of 'asymmetric information'. Grifters count on this all the time.
Interesting question.
There are two answers:
1) Have somebody regulate who gets to be a beggar.
2) Don't give people money if you don't trust them.
My surmise is that the second method is cheaper on average.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 31, 2023, 09:01:57 AMSee, I would be a little hesitant to pass judgment just yet----I mean, she sold the house, right? Which sounds like money problems for a rich person.
As I said, it looks to me like she may have made a boatload of money 30 years ago, but where has she been since? Even millions fritter away if you are living the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Johnny Depp I would absolutely be suspicious of. Mary Lou is famous for my generation, but after that, Mary Who? And then one gets sick... I know that my dad's cancer treatments cost almost a million dollars; even if he sold everything in his estate, he wouldn't have been able to pay all that; insurance actually worked the way it is supposed to.
Maybe this is somebody's scam. Or maybe not.
https://www.jacksonprogress-argus.com/arena/parade/mary-lou-rettons-net-worth-in-2023-and-why-she-had-to-crowdfund-her-medical/article_db3bcf78-9243-5c3a-bc3a-f5cf03d49869.html
The challenge for many people is making a boatload of money and then thinking it will keep coming in.
Or buying an 11,000 square foot house and not realizing how much it costs to heat, cool, maintain, and pay property taxes on.
Quote from: dismalist on October 31, 2023, 09:47:41 AMThe Affordable Care Act is still on the books. Nothing was "struck down" by a court. Rather, the "'tax' on not having insurance" was voted out of the law.
While there is a moral hazard argument for coercion here, the Act has nevertheless been effective. Lower income people are indeed subsidized. In 2022 92.1% of the population had some form of health insurance.
Share with health insurance (https://www.statista.com/statistics/200958/percentage-of-americans-with-health-insurance/#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20people%20in%20the%20United%20States,insurance%2C%20compared%20to%20around%2084%20percent%20in%202010.)
To return to Gofundme, the lady not having health insurance is anomalous. But no deception was undertaken, and as I said, donating was voluntary. So this is a non-problem.
Not quite. Trump removed it via executive order. That's as far as he got in repealing the ACA. We never did find out what he had in mind to replace it.
Quote from: secundem_artem on November 02, 2023, 10:44:37 AMQuote from: dismalist on October 31, 2023, 09:47:41 AMThe Affordable Care Act is still on the books. Nothing was "struck down" by a court. Rather, the "'tax' on not having insurance" was voted out of the law.
While there is a moral hazard argument for coercion here, the Act has nevertheless been effective. Lower income people are indeed subsidized. In 2022 92.1% of the population had some form of health insurance.
Share with health insurance (https://www.statista.com/statistics/200958/percentage-of-americans-with-health-insurance/#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20people%20in%20the%20United%20States,insurance%2C%20compared%20to%20around%2084%20percent%20in%202010.)
To return to Gofundme, the lady not having health insurance is anomalous. But no deception was undertaken, and as I said, donating was voluntary. So this is a non-problem.
Not quite. Trump removed it via executive order. That's as far as he got in repealing the ACA. We never did find out what he had in mind to replace it.
There were all kinds of executive orders [there always are], but eliminating the tax penalty for not being insured was part of the tax reform bill passed at the end of 2017.
Quote from: clean on October 31, 2023, 09:17:03 AMIF ONLY there was a law that would require people from all walks of life and incomes to have health insurance so that they do not become burdens to society. The government could even subsidize low income people afford the policies.
Slightly off-topic....
I still haven't heard an explanation of why people in the U.S. don't think this is the way to fund police, fire, and all emergency services. Why does this make sense for healthcare, including "emergency" healthcare, (i.e. for unexpected situations requiring expensive treatment), whereas all of those other services are just *provided and funded directly by governments?
*I know some of those services in some municipalities get contracted out, but the funding is still provided by the government out of general revenue with universal coverage. So even when the services are
provided by private contractors, they are still
funded by government. This is how universal healthcare works in many countries.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2023, 05:06:33 AMQuote from: clean on October 31, 2023, 09:17:03 AMIF ONLY there was a law that would require people from all walks of life and incomes to have health insurance so that they do not become burdens to society. The government could even subsidize low income people afford the policies.
Slightly off-topic....
I still haven't heard an explanation of why people in the U.S. don't think this is the way to fund police, fire, and all emergency services. Why does this make sense for healthcare, including "emergency" healthcare, (i.e. for unexpected situations requiring expensive treatment), whereas all of those other services are just *provided and funded directly by governments?
*I know some of those services in some municipalities get contracted out, but the funding is still provided by the government out of general revenue with universal coverage. So even when the services are provided by private contractors, they are still funded by government. This is how universal healthcare works in many countries.
The people with health insurance, prefer to keep their power and control over those without health insurance (or without adequate health insurance).
For example:
1) the big corporations who have better health insurance which helps to retain employees, and keep their employees from jumping ship to a start-up that cannot afford to have the same health insurance package as the established corporation
A universal health insurance policy would level the playing field between the start-ups and the established corporations. No corporation wants that.
Also, an employee who is not dependent on the employer for health insurance, has more freedom to quit and drop out of the work force anytime they want to. No corporation wants that or any policy that empowers their employees over the bosses.
2) the abusive husband who abuses their stay-at-home wife, but she can't leave him and the relationship because she (and her children if the couple has kids) would lose health insurance coverage. A universal health insurance plan means that the abusive husband would have to stop being an a$$hole. A$$holes want to keep their power.
3) doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, hospital & health care staff all benefit financially from a system that allows them to obscure pricing, stifle competition, and jack up prices. Sure, they'll blame the insurance red tape, the insurance company, the malpractice lawyers, the bloated health care administration, the government over-regulation, etc., but in the end, there's a reason all the doctors & nurses in the world want to come to the USA to practice medicine: they can make a crapload more $ in the USA than anywhere else in the world, and that's partly because of the f**ked up health insurance system in the USA that obscures prices, stifles competition, and jacks up prices. There is no way that these people would support an actual national health insurance system that actually works. They would lose their vacation home.
4) the private health insurance lobby would, of course, never allow any nationalized health plan system to go into place that didn't enrich them over the welfare of the population (partly why the ACA is so mediocre)
I'm curious. Would anyone here donate to a (health) fund for someone who owned (or sold) a 9000sq ft house last year?
Quote from: simpleSimon on November 03, 2023, 08:36:34 AMI'm curious. Would anyone here donate to a (health) fund for someone who owned (or sold) a 9000sq ft house last year?
We all have pop-star heroes in the media. We feel like we know these people.
My wife and I talked for some time about how much we liked Matthew Perry. I'm still very sad about Eddie Van Halen. I will always remember when James Dickey died (not a pop-star but same sort of thing). I'm already bracing for Itzhak Perlman (again, not a pop-star) and Jerry Seinfeld, in fact the whole
Seinfeld cast----although they still have a ways to go yet.
If any of these people's progenies got on the news and said, "My parent is ill and needs cash," yeah, I'd probably donate.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 03, 2023, 08:54:37 AMQuote from: simpleSimon on November 03, 2023, 08:36:34 AMI'm curious. Would anyone here donate to a (health) fund for someone who owned (or sold) a 9000sq ft house last year?
We all have pop-star heroes in the media. We feel like we know these people.
My wife and I talked for some time about how much we liked Matthew Perry. I'm still very sad about Eddie Van Halen. I will always remember when James Dickey died (not a pop-star but same sort of thing). I'm already bracing for Itzhak Perlman (again, not a pop-star) and Jerry Seinfeld, in fact the whole Seinfeld cast----although they still have a ways to go yet.
If any of these people's progenies got on the news and said, "My parent is ill and needs cash," yeah, I'd probably donate.
A) With respect I think Itzhak Perlman is indeed a pop start. At least he is to me.
B) I would not donate. My first thought would be "Scam alert! What happened to the millions of dollars you made?"
lightning's explanation of the reasons national health insurance faces multipart strong opposition are clear enough-- so how did places like Canada, Britain, etc., overcome these objections to get the national insurance schemes they have? What other factors are at play differentiating us and them?
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 03, 2023, 10:10:21 AMlightning's explanation of the reasons national health insurance faces multipart strong opposition are clear enough-- so how did places like Canada, Britain, etc., overcome these objections to get the national insurance schemes they have? What other factors are at play differentiating us and them?
For one thing, in Canada, (and I would assume in most others), the change was made decades ago, when there wasn't such a palpable distrust of governments, and when many people were poor enough to not expect that they could self-finance their own services. (When there was a lot of regional disparity in services as well, a government-administered system had a better chance of
*reducing regional inequalities.)
*There's another reason; in many societies, reducing inequalities is a high priority. In the U.S., there's always been a higher priority on letting everyone take care of themselves and not be "dragged down" by others.
There's not going to be a concerted push for universal health insurance in the US. Look what happened to Elizabeth Warren's presidential bid!
The reasons are partly nefarious, though upthread posts identify the wrong villains. The overwhelming reason is that 81% of the insured rate their insurance as excellent or good. That extends to Medicare and even Medicaid.
Health Insurance Satisfaction (https://www.kff.org/report-section/kff-survey-of-consumer-experiences-with-health-insurance-findings/:~:text=Most%20insured%20adults%20(81%)%20give%20their%20health%20insurance,68%%20of%20people%20in%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfair%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20or%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cpoor%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20health.)
I infer that no politician has a ghost of a chance in promoting universal health insurance.
And, as I said upthread, 92.1% of the population is insured.
Universal health insurance -- statutory, everyone is forced to pay the premium -- started in Germany with Bismarck in 1883. It is worth bearing in mind that the health system couldn't do much in those days. So, it was cheap to run.
Much of the world follows this Bismarckian system. That's financed by earmarked taxes but not run by the government.
Government provided health care is rare. It started off in the United Kingdom in 1948. Medical progress only increased noticeably in the 1930's, so it was early days and still cheap to run. Only Sweden and much later Italy have followed suit. [Oh, government provided health care doesn't necessarily reduce regional disparities. If you get sick in southern Italy, your best bet is to take a taxi to northern Italy! :-(]
As for the US, it has always puzzled me that the Roosevelt Administration didn't pass corresponding legislation. A student dug out the facts for me in a term paper: There were plans afoot, but Roosevelt was afraid of the American Medical Association!
And that is the villain in US medical care history. It started off by having medical schools shut down, limiting competition and raising doctors' incomes. Lobbied extensively to provide not health insurance, but hospital payment insurance, which eventually molded Medicare. The AMA is a shadow of its former self since the Reagan Administration cut it down on anti-trust grounds, but it still co-controls the number of medical students. The US has fewer doctors per capita than other civilized countries.
The US health care non-system is an anomaly. There is no other like it in the civilized world. It didn't start out that way. The bad guy has been the AMA and now its most of the rest of us.
QuoteThere's not going to be a concerted push for universal health insurance in the US. Look what happened to Elizabeth Warren's presidential bid!
Elizabeth Warren lost a lot of people when she then went on to say that private health insurance would be illegal. Every country with public health insurance has a private option, FFS.
QuoteGovernment provided health care is rare. It started off in the United Kingdom in 1948. Medical progress only increased noticeably in the 1930's, so it was early days and still cheap to run.
It was a continuation of the public health system set up during WW2 to keep citizens well during the war, and it stuck around.
QuoteAs for the US, it has always puzzled me that the Roosevelt Administration didn't pass corresponding legislation. A student dug out the facts for me in a term paper: There were plans afoot, but Roosevelt was afraid of the American Medical Association!
Yes, FDR was picking his battles. LBJ was able to get Medicare and Medicaid passed in the mid-1960's but when Nixon tried to pass universal health care around 1970 he was shot down. Among the main reasons was that White Americans were upset that now Black Americans would (also) be getting "free" healthcare.
You know what is really weird? State-run lotteries. We don't want to pay a few dollars in taxes so people can have their basic needs met. But every once in a while the State pays out millions of dollars to one lucky person. And we're cool with that.
Whatever.
Well, ideas for an NHS started around 1900.
Finance was by private insurance and by local government. The only thing that changed during the war was that central government financed war wounded.
One can't blame the failure of the Nixon plans on racism out of hand. There was almost a Nixon-Kennedy compromise plan ready, but then Watergate happened.
Then of course there was Hilary Clinton's plan when her husband was president. I have forgotten the details but her main man on developing the plan was one Ira Magaziner. I met him once, years before, and determined he was an idiot, so I didn't much follow the planning.
It is true, however, that in the development of the ACA great care was taken that it didn't look like the healthy would "subsidize" the sick. But that is the essence of insurance! Here, a main man, one Jonathan Gruber got in trouble for getting caught on video explaining how that was all hidden and that what Chief Justice Roberts said was a tax was actually not a tax and that it was important to tell the noble lie.
Jon Gruber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo)
You don't want to see sausages being made.
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 04, 2023, 09:36:39 AMYes, FDR was picking his battles. LBJ was able to get Medicare and Medicaid passed in the mid-1960's but when Nixon tried to pass universal health care around 1970 he was shot down. Among the main reasons was that White Americans were upset that now Black Americans would (also) be getting "free" healthcare.
Quote from: dismalist on November 04, 2023, 10:43:47 AMIt is true, however, that in the development of the ACA great care was taken that it didn't look like the healthy would "subsidize" the sick. But that is the essence of insurance!
I don't get it. Do people make the same complaints about fire and police services; i.e. that "safer" neighborhoods are subsidizing more "dangerous" neighborhoods? The same logic should apply, but I'm not really aware of any great clamour of that sort for these other *emergency services.
*On a side note, has anyone seen a breakdown of the proportion of healthcare spending on "random" things like cancer, car accidents, and natural disasters, as opposed to "lifestyle" things? (I know, there's going to be lots of overlap, but my point is that in most countries a lot of the support for universal healthcare is based on the assumption that the "random" things are a big part of the worry for
everyone; the
extra costs due to bad lifestyle choices of some people aren't a big enough burden to undermine the value of the basic system.) The "random" things are what make healthcare an emergency service.
Never mind the sausage making. We do have near universal health insurance.