Anyway, on the healthcare/bankruptcy thing. I followed the academic spat a bit in real-time, and it wasn't the ZOMG PWNT debunking that it's presented as.
Basically the Harvard study produced a range (40-something to 50-something percent) of the bankruptcies for which health expenditures are a major factor. Dranove looked at their data, came up with a different way to define the causation, and wound up with a lower number.
Thing is, Dranove's method was really, really narrow. IIRC he only counted people who were hit by provider costs. So he left out anyone who went bankrupt while paying tons for medication. As well as more indirect causes, like losing income because of illness (or having to provide care for a sick loved one), or exorbitant credit card fees stacked on to the original medical costs.
Both sides seemed to have an ideological dog in the fight, but I don't think anyone was rabid enough to be immediately dismissed, fwiw.