Study Links 45,000 U.S. Deaths a year to lack of Insurance (1 Viewer)

[BullDawg]

Here's another prime example of what I mean by not focusing on the problem. By using the same argument standards for mandating health insurance to save 45,000, I could just as easily make the argument the government should mandate marriage in order to save lives.

From the CDC report...

The never-married group had an age-adjusted death rate 68.3 percent higher than those who were ever married and 2.3 times the rate for the currently married. The never-married group had an age-adjusted death rate 68.3 percent higher than those who were ever married and 2.3 times the rate for the currently married.

Just look at how many lives we could save by forcing single people to get married!

In reality, the only thing that would shift would be the percentages.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Here's another prime example of what I mean by not focusing on the problem. By using the same argument standards for mandating health insurance to save 45,000, I could just as easily make the argument the government should mandate marriage in order to save lives.

From the CDC report...


Just look at how many lives we could save by forcing single people to get married!

In reality, the only thing that would shift would be the percentages.

And the suicide rate.

 

[BullDawg]

And the suicide rate.

rofl...too shay

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So to use a medical analogy, we go for the band-aid approach and call it a day?

If anyone is really serious about the health care of this nation, they have to be prepared to make the hard choices that truly make a difference. Even if every American had insurance coverage, we'd still be losing over a million people annually to mostly preventable diseases.

Where did i say I want that? Im just being honest about what is and isn't politically possible.

I get this sense your making the perfect the enemy of the good here. Throwing stones at piecemeal advances because they aren't the ideal. In a perfect world, with perfect citizens, who are all informed and no political corruption exists, the ideal would be achievable. But we don't have the ideal setting. You want to bring down health disease, well so do I. You want to take a chunk out of the deaths caused by it? Me too. And one way to that is to increase access and affordability to those who cant afford it and have been denied access to it. It seems you want to throw that piecemeal advance away because its not addressing the whole pie. Thats insanity to me.

On the subject of corn-syrup subsidies, I encourage you to read Michael Pollan's latest piece on why he thinks healthcare reform will inevitably push the insurance lobby to pressure the congressional leaders to drop farm subsidies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=big food pollan&st=cse

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Here's another prime example of what I mean by not focusing on the problem. By using the same argument standards for mandating health insurance to save 45,000, I could just as easily make the argument the government should mandate marriage in order to save lives.

From the CDC report...


Just look at how many lives we could save by forcing single people to get married!

In reality, the only thing that would shift would be the percentages.

I think the term lurking variable is applicable here.

Again, let's look at it statistically then. If 1.85% is the magic number, by focusing on health insurance coverage instead of the root cause(s) for the heart disease mortality rates, you'd potentially save 11,685 lives annually. That's less than half the number of fatalities attributed to alcohol abuse not counting alcohol-vehicle related incidents. Does that mean we should re-introduce alcohol prohibition in order to save those lives?

You keep trying to turn this into a zero-sum game. Why is it impossible to do two things at one time? Why can you not address the gap of insurance and deal with curbing heart disease. Why is it either or? Your logic is making no sense to me. You've introduced this red herring of heart disease and are using it to side step the point of this thread, which was to discuss how being uninsured is killing people.

 

[bclemms]

A) Physicians for a National Health Program- No bias in this study I swear.


The same study comes up with 18k deaths a year in 2002 but jumps to 45k in 2008? Wow, why such a huge jump? PNHP claims it is because more people are uninsured now. In fact uninsured americans is up 1.25%. Somehow that 1.25% causes a 250+% in deaths. How may times are these newly uninsured people dying?

 

[BullDawg]

Where did i say I want that? Im just being honest about what is and isn't politically possible.

I get this sense your making the perfect the enemy of the good here. Throwing stones at piecemeal advances because they aren't the ideal. In a perfect world, with perfect citizens, who are all informed and no political corruption exists, the ideal would be achievable. But we don't have the ideal setting. You want to bring down health disease, well so do I. You want to take a chunk out of the deaths caused by it? Me too. And one way to that is to increase access and affordability to those who cant afford it and have been denied access to it. It seems you want to throw that piecemeal advance away because its not addressing the whole pie. Thats insanity to me.

On the subject of corn-syrup subsidies, I encourage you to read Michael Pollan's latest piece on why he thinks healthcare reform will inevitably push the insurance lobby to pressure the congressional leaders to drop farm subsidies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=big food pollan&st=cse

I'll be sure to read that when I get home. Time to get out of here for the day. But suffice to say, I don't find it insane at all to honestly assess the root cause and address it head on. Otherwise we're truly slapping a band-aid on it and not fixing anything.

And yes it would take considerable political capital. But it would have real, verifiable, and long-lasting effect. Aren't the lives of >1 million worth it?

I think the term lurking variable is applicable here.

My point exactly.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

A) Physicians for a National Health Program- No bias in this study I swear.


The same study comes up with 18k deaths a year in 2002 but jumps to 45k in 2008? Wow, why such a huge jump? PNHP claims it is because more people are uninsured now. In fact uninsured americans is up 1.25%. Somehow that 1.25% causes a 250+% in deaths. How may times are these newly uninsured people dying?

Would 18,000 deaths not be an outrage or something?

 

[BullDawg]

You keep trying to turn this into a zero-sum game. Why is it impossible to do two things at one time? Why can you not address the gap of insurance and deal with curbing heart disease. Why is it either or? Your logic is making no sense to me. You've introduced this red herring of heart disease and are using it to side step the point of this thread, which was to discuss how being uninsured is killing people.

No red herring. And no zero sum game. The effects of mitigating the former dramatically alter the need for the latter. And I do not mean to infer you focus solely on heart disease. You must continue to look for the root cause for other diseases to eliminate those as well. Time and again medical research in one area has reaped benefits for other diseases. We must continue to do that.

Fund the medical research. Place an emphasis on it. Make it your "man on the moon" mission. Think outside the box instead of spouting off (D) talking points.

You want to discuss how the lack of insurance is killing people. I'm simply pointing out where that is the red herring in fixing our healthcare problems.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I'll be sure to read that when I get home. Time to get out of here for the day. But suffice to say, I don't find it insane at all to honestly assess the root cause and address it head on. Otherwise we're truly slapping a band-aid on it and not fixing anything.

And yes it would take considerable political capital. But it would have real, verifiable, and long-lasting effect. Aren't the lives of >1 million worth it?

So would covering the uninsured and reforming healthcare. Along with having many, many other positive effects.

And there is no singular root cause. You act as if we get rid of corn subsidies and reform the agricultural sector that it will stop people from gorging on red meat, or stop obesity. These are all problems that have a multitude of sources that have more than one way of being remedied. And no matter what political tools you use to change things people are still slaves to their routines and instincts and we humans have a biological urge for fats and sweets. And some much more than others. Your not going to ban all fats and sugars in America. Its just not happening. But one realistic angle to tackle this problem is to provide preventive care, cover people who arent covered, and as Pollan says, reforming the system the way this bill is intended to do, may pit insurance companies against the agricultural industry because the fatty, sugary, subsidized foods are hurting their bottom line.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

No red herring. And no zero sum game. The effects of mitigating the former dramatically alter the need for the latter. And I do not mean to infer you focus solely on heart disease. You must continue to look for the root cause for other diseases to eliminate those as well. Time and again medical research in one area has reaped benefits for other diseases. We must continue to do that.

Fund the medical research. Place an emphasis on it. Make it your "man on the moon" mission. Think outside the box instead of spouting off (D) talking points.

You want to discuss how the lack of insurance is killing people. I'm simply pointing out where that is the red herring in fixing our healthcare problems.

You know that **** gets on my ****ing nerves. You didnt see me calling you a republican shrill, claiming you were spouting off republican talking points when we had our global warming debate did you? You haven't seen me calling you a partisan hack in this thread have you? Dont say the same of me unless you can back it up!

I was trying to conversate with you peacefully but this snarky, dismissive crap puts me at my wits end.

I'm saying this and then Im done with you for the day.

The moment health reform is passed and insurers can no longer underwrite and deny based on pre-existing conditions, the moment they can no longer charge different rates because you are labeled obese or have diabetes. Insurers will quickly learn that every case of diabetes and every heart disease case they have to now accept at normal prices, now having to cover a majority of the expenses associated with it (no more rescissions), is costing them huge dollars - cutting into their profits. At that point insurers have a huge incentive to pressure changes to the way we subsidize food in this country. When the largest lobbying group in the country starts to realize that another lobbying group is costing them money all of the sudden you have a huge new ally on your side to reform agriculture. One you wont have without healthcare reform.

Maybe this line of logic isnt thinking outside the box though.

 

[from the plaines]

I havent read the report, at all. But I have a question to some one who has. Did this go over the number of people who dont want coverage even if they have the option, or chose a poor plan to begin with, even if they had better options?

 

[mikaloyd]

Once I get good insurance as long as a tree doesnt fall on me I will be immortal.

 

[cdogg]

Once I get good insurance as long as a tree doesnt fall on me I will be immortal.

I see you avoid all carbs.

 

[mikaloyd]

I see you avoid all carbs.

Fuel injection all the way!