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

[BullDawg]

You're right Bronco, that was an unfair shot and I apologize.

I'll reply to the rest of the later on.

 

[dtc]

Can you provide a link for that statement? I don't see anything remotely claiming this fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

 

[lapaz]

OK....so basically this study followed 9,000 patients and found out that the uninsured are more likely to die than an insured person...or that the rate is higher. The studies prescreening for health was 5 categories. That is ridiculous and not enough. It doesn't get an equal sample and I think the researchers used that to skew the figures.

Now, on average, let's compare a person with health insurance vs a person without insurance. A person with insurance tends to come from a higher socioeconomic class. These people tend to have less stress, eat better, exercise more, and just have an all around better lifestyle. Since these people have the better lifestyle, they, on average, live longer than people of low socioeconomic level.

Cliff note version:

People who have insurance tend to have a high SES....people without insurance tend to be low SES.

People of high SES tend to take better care of themselves, which means they live longer, get ill less, and recover from illness better....

This study does not have enough health screening to weed out the other factors that could be distorting the results. What looks like the horrors of our system could be nothing more than the luxury of living a better and healthier life.

While I've read that higher economic groups are healthier, the poorest have health insurance. Another factor that could skew this line of thinking is that if a person knows he doesn't have insurance, he could take more care of himself to avoid getting sick. I don't think that's going to offset poor vs wealthy health stat completely, but it will reduce the difference between those populations.

 

[lapaz]

How many people die due to a lack of housing or a lack of proper food because of poverty? I would say that if we are going to spend this kind of money we should focus on more immediate concerns than going to a doctor. The fact is that there is no money to grab for politicians in feeding the poor or housing them while taking over health care will give them much more power over everyones lives. They could easily just focus on fixing the insurance situation without involving everyone in their scheme but that won't happen either.

The poorest have food stamps programs and public housing. Extremely few above the poverty line die due to lack of food (probably close to zero, except for eating disorders), or housing (except perhaps after they lose their house to pay medical bills), yet many die due to improper health care. I don't know if the number is 40k, 18k, or some other number, but I know many die from lack of check-ups due to lack of health care. I have a first hand anecdotal experience, since my dad died because he couldn't afford to go to the doctor when he started his business, and I'm sure there are many more like me.

 

[Superfan]

How many die from homelessness? What is our next big moral decision.

 

[lapaz]

How many die from homelessness? What is our next big moral decision.

Homelessness is generally due to other underlying problems, such as mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. There are shelters and public housing for most, but some people don't want to use them, or lose their privledges for various reasons. This is side-tracking the discussion, because housing and food problems are no reason to not offer subsidized health care to the many working Americans that can't afford it.

 

[AeonSaar]

How many die from homelessness? What is our next big moral decision.

".... Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense and ******** each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over - not one human being excluded - and we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever. In peace"

Bill Hicks, your signature avatar

 

[zenshin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

I still don't see where it says the American public is paying for the public option in either of these countries. It states there is a public option, but no where does it say the tax payer is flipping the bill for the public option. Sorry. Sounds like you misinterpreted the article.

You'd better sit down, folks.

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

Article 31 reads:

"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics,or private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."

There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.

Under force of arms, President Bush imposed his particular idea of democracy on a people not asking for it - perhaps a noble undertaking in one context and a criminal violation of international law in another. Bush's followers are proud of the Iraqi Constitution, a model for the world, they told us.

So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us. Not good for you. They decry even a limited public option for you, but gleefully imposed upon the Iraqis what they label here as "socialism," with much Democratic Party member support.

Indeed, reading the Iraqi Constitution so near to the 8th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is instructive. It is the very definition of American right-wing hypocrisy.

We have (thus far) sacrificed more blood to wrest Iraq from tyranny than we lost on 9/11. In addition, according to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 15, 2009 (Report 7-5700/RL33110) we have spent and/or authorized $864 Billion in military operations on Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of those funds have been for the war in Iraq. Additional secret funding has been authorized for intelligence and special operations.

The total is more than (or, in the worst case, equal to) the funding required to guarantee minimally decent health care here.

In other words, the most senior members of the Republican establishment - and some Democrats like Max Baucus (D-MT) - have gladly spent more taxpayer funds to ensure health care as a Constitutional right in Iraq than they are willing to spend to give you any level of guaranteed coverage.

The source document I used is from the official United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. If you'd like to download and review the full Iraqi Constitution, click HERE

This news is an example of the benefit of our online viral information age. The situation was first called to my attention late yesterday (September 8) by a long-term blogger, Korkie Moore-Bruno, on a think tank list of Obama supporters. Korkie posted an alert from her Facebook friend Jubal Harshaw. Give them credit for the heads-up; all I've done was verify the rumor with the United Nations.

It would seem that U. S. citizens might find out if their Representative and/or Senators have supported or voted to fund the war in Iraq. If so, do they support health care as a civil right for you?

If the answers to those questions are "yes" and "no," respectively, you might consider less hypocritical representation.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

I see where the author makes a weak attempt to tie the funds used to finance the war with the guarantee of public health care, but he shows no evidence that I see that would support direct funding by the American public for Iraqi/Afghanistan health care. Looks like a liberal media spin on the war(s) to me. Political spin at it's best.

 

[dtc]

I still don't see where it says the American public is paying for the public option in either of these countries. It states there is a public option, but no where does it say the tax payer is flipping the bill for the public option. Sorry. Sounds like you misinterpreted the article.



I see where the author makes a weak attempt to tie the funds used to finance the war with the guarantee of public health care, but he shows no evidence that I see that would support direct funding by the American public for Iraqi/Afghanistan health care. Looks like a liberal media spin on the war(s) to me. Political spin at it's best.

I admit to taking the leap that since we destroyed their economies and infrastructure, displaced all of their jobs, pay all of their governmental and military salaries, are rebuilding schools and hospitals and other infrastructure that we were, in fact, paying for their health care.

I guess it's conceivable that they're paying for it themselves with money we've given or "loaned" them or that all the items you see in WalMart marked "made in Iraq/Afghanistan" are enough to pay it.

I do sometimes make stupid assumptions.

 

[Superfan]

".... Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense and ******** each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over - not one human being excluded - and we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever. In peace"

Bill Hicks, your signature avatar

I'm just planting seeds.

 

[Rob Beaux]

To go further, you break down the root causes for heart disease. I don't have the numbers right in front of me and don't really have the time to research them all at this time of day while I'm trying to catch up from the past 2 weeks. But suffice to say the leading indicators have reportedly been tobacco use and obesity. So you again break down the leading indicators (I believe obesity has surpassed tobacco but won't swear to it) and you'll find the obvious two...diet and exercise. Now you would be hard pressed to force people to exercise, but you could offer incentives to businesses that encourage and support daily exercise programs, increase your physical activities at public schools, etc. You could also look at the root cause of dietary problems such as high-fructose corn syrup (which the government could do something about) and whatever other factors can be identified through in-depth analysis.

Not only would you be saving more lives, you would decrease the need for medical visits thereby lowering insurance costs. Lower insurance costs would result in less of your population lacking adequate coverage.

treat the cause not the symptoms... is not practiced any more.

Thats why we give antibioticsand pain pills like candy, Thats also why people get one drug that causes one side effect then another pill to treat that side effect and the drug cascade continues.

 

[BIG E]

I'm not trying to argue, but I do want to understand some points here:1. The people didn't die of lack of health care. They perhaps died of a condition which could have been identified IF they had coverage and went in to get checked. I'm not trying to be a wise guy but that is a giant leap of logic. Would medical coverage have saved them or were they going to die anyway? I don't know the details or how they reached these conclusions.2. If we approach this from a legal standpoint (DUI/seatbelt analogy), do we simply make it a law that a person must have medical insurance? Wouldn't that be better than a completely government subsidized program?3. I really do care about people w/o coverage but if there are 45 million people w/o coverage how can the government pay for this? This is a huge problem that I think will burden the government.4. What level of care does anyone think government coverage will provide? I have visions of VA hospitals and waiting lines which take hours to get through. I am just trying to think is it realistic to think we can fix this through government programs?5. What about people with medical coverage who don't go to the hospital and die? What do we do about the stubborn? I am making a silly point here but why should the government take responsibility? What are the alternatives to a wholesale government program providing health care?

Not only would you have to make everyone get insurance you would have to make them use it. Some people do not like going to the doctor and won't go until it is too late.

 

[Flipx99]

How much is one life worth? That is what we're trying to quantify here, right?

I don't think so.

 

[zenshin]

I admit to taking the leap that since we destroyed their economies and infrastructure, displaced all of their jobs, pay all of their governmental and military salaries, are rebuilding schools and hospitals and other infrastructure that we were, in fact, paying for their health care.

I guess it's conceivable that they're paying for it themselves with money we've given or "loaned" them or that all the items you see in WalMart marked "made in Iraq/Afghanistan" are enough to pay it.

I do sometimes make stupid assumptions.

Obviously you assume that these countries have no means of supporting themselves what so ever. Please do not forget that both countries do produce oil, which costs a couple of bucks last I checked. Not that the US isn't assisting these countries, but to say that we're their sole means of financial support only insults the people of these countries.

So, yes, dumb assumption, and yet your comeback seems to be equally lacking of actual facts.

 

[Jeff Miller]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf



Even if it is partially flawed, even if it is half of what the results say, its unacceptable. People shouldn't be dying because they cant afford medical coverage.

This just in...Life reports that everyone with insurance...dies.