No health coverage tied to 45,000 deaths a year

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by clevin, Sep 18, 2009.

  1. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #1
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32882064/ns/health-health_care/

    excess death by not having insurance, Texas is at top of the chart with 29%. Congratulations, Mr. Perry.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    And it will continue because people are afraid of "socialism". :mad::rolleyes: God, it makes me ill. I can't believe we're still having this "debate". There is no debate. The free market cannot provide adequate health care. It simply can't. We prove it year after year.
     
  4. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #4
    45,000 is a small price to pay for the great life that it allows the health care executives and politicians to lead.
     
  5. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    The flu is a disease. Are we now classifying lack of health care a disease?
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Just giving some perspective. I would be interested in figuring out what they count as a death due to lack of health insurance.
     
  8. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #8
    Would you consider Medicare to be part of the "free market?"
    Would you consider Medicaid to be part of the "free market?"
    Would you consider government mandates on what insurance MUST cover to be part of the "free market?"
    Would you consider government mandates on locations/states where insurance companies can and can't do business thereby artificially manipulating the 'supply' curve of coverage to be part of the "free market?"
    Would you consider government over-regulation limiting new companies from entering the health insurance market at all part of the "free market?"

    Just curious... it would seem you and I have varying definitions of a "free market healthcare system." :rolleyes:

    BTW, imagine if the U.S. government MANDATED that EVERY SINGLE auto-insurance company in the U.S. make EVERY SINGLE one of their car insurance plans cover EVERY SINGLE possible claim? (i.e. full-coverage) Then, they only let a certain number of these companies offer plans in each state, and you couldn't buy coverage from outside of your state... so instead of having 10-100 companies competing for your business, you've got 2 of them with virtually identical offerings? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD DO TO YOUR CAR INSURANCE PRICES? Is this the free market you're talking about?
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    1. No
    2. No
    3. No, and I don't like the new health care reform proposal. You know that. That's why I advocate a public option to cover everyone.
    4. Yes- business is regulated all the time, and needs to be.
    5. Can't answer this one. You're leaving out all the crap the insurance companies do as well.

    You just further proved my point. The free market isn't capable of delivering health care in an efficient manner. It was never meant to. Why is this so hard to grasp?
     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    The US healthcare system is 30% better than a viral disease.
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #11
    And how many of those deaths could be avoided if people had proper health care?
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    Very few, most of the people who die are on government health care already ;)
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    +1. In almost all cases successful businesses are regulated.

    and only 4000 died in 9/11 yet it caused the government to introduce a huge number of extra controls.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Got a link for that claim?
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15

    Can't Wade through 5 million h1n1 articles on my iPod to show you that people over 65 are the highest risk potential for fatality via flu virus.
     
  16. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #16
    Not that I doubt a lack of healthcare is a serious problem, but I'm extremely skeptical of the ability to even put a ballpark number on how many deaths it causes.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    I know that this is just further proof that my account has been hacked by a conservative :p. But I think Zombie is right here.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    that's not what they are planning. What they are planning for is making sure stuff the insurance companies say is covered is covered. If I got travel insurance for $5 million and they refused to helecopter me off a mountain (assuming I was doing an allowed activity.) i would be furious as otherwise there is no point in having the insurance.
     
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #19
    Dance puppet, dance.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    <dances>
     
  21. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #21
    No, of course not.

    I think what he's suggesting is that, insured or not, some people are going to get sick and die. All the money and health insurance in the world won't necessarily save you from a horrible bug once you get it.

    But that's not what this article is about, as I read it. It's not clear how the study qualifies someone's death as being directly related to not having insurance; if anything, it appears to extrapolate a risk of death being greater for those without insurance, and sanctifies that as the number of people who die because they don't have insurance.

    From the article:

    There is one part of the article, however, that I absolutely and almost completely agree with:

    Personally, I would agree to his statement if he had said, "...it's completely a no-brainer that some people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things..." rather than seemingly apply that statement to all uninsured people. But the point is well-taken.
     
  22. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #22
    This is just another in a string of lame actuarial studies trotted out to try to claim causal linkages between variables based on associations between them to advocate for UHC. This studies are not experimental and are subject to potentially huge self-selection biases. People without health coverage are likely to be unemployed, poorer, have pre-existing conditions that prevent them from getting coverage, and differ in many other ways from those who are covered that might predispose them to earlier death. Enough already with this crappy research. The next person posting such rubbish should have a 2 week time out and be flogged 50 times.
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    I was going to address your points individually but it'd be easier if I asked straight up. Have you actually read this study before dismissing it as crappy?
     
  24. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #24
    I have the feeling you didn't read anything. You just making a statement based on your own "thinking". Unfortunately, you have no data to back anything you said.
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    Is your argument then that those who are "unemployed, poorer, have pre-existing conditions" should be consigned to the scrapheap? This is a vicious circle: those who are "unemployed, poorer, have pre-existing conditions" are obviously less able to get the medical attention they need, which in turn leads to shorter life expectancy, which in turn leads to the "self-selection" you decry. How convenient! This allows you to trash any study which shows such a correlation as being essentially worthless, even though it is the correlation itself which is the important thing. Those whose life expectancy could be most improved by UHC are those whose life expectancy is lowest. QED. The data may be self-selecting, but your arguments are entirely self-serving.
     

Share This Page