45.000 deaths a year due to no insurance

[questionmark]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Doctor David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Read more...

no comment needed...

[Lt_Ripley]

sad in this day and age.

[AROCES]

These studies normally pops out whenever an agenda is being push, study here and there by experts here and there.

[questionmark]

These studies normally pops out whenever an agenda is being push, study here and there by experts here and there.

You mean to say that poor uninsured are getting medical treatment for free lately?

[AROCES]

You mean to say that poor uninsured are getting medical treatment for free lately?

Maybe if you ask the poor uninsured to give up their cable TV, IPOD or SUV then they can afford an insurance.

Edited September 18, 2009 by AROCES

[Harte]

You mean to say that poor uninsured are getting medical treatment for free lately?

QM,

As far as I can see, the article doesn't claim that these people are poor.

Are you saying that I should bear the health care burden for sick people that had previously decided to eschew insurance because they didn't want to pay for it and now the fiddler has come to collect his due?

What, then, would be my motivation for having paid thousands of dollars over the last 20 years or so for my own coverage? Should I not have done that, knowing that QuestionMark would be there to bail me out in the end so that I could have bought those new cars, that 20 year old scotch, etc. that I went without because I did the responsible thing?

Harte

[questionmark]

QM,

As far as I can see, the article doesn't claim that these people are poor.

Are you saying that I should bear the health care burden for sick people that had previously decided to eschew insurance because they didn't want to pay for it and now the fiddler has come to collect his due?

What, then, would be my motivation for having paid thousands of dollars over the last 20 years or so for my own coverage? Should I not have done that, knowing that QuestionMark would be there to bail me out in the end so that I could have bought those new cars, that 20 year old scotch, etc. that I went without because I did the responsible thing?

Harte

QuestionMark bails nobody out, but does not mind a mandatory health insurance for all, wherein those not capable (emphasis) of paying get their tab taken by the community.

[Startraveler]

As far as I can see, the article doesn't claim that these people are poor.

Are you saying that I should bear the health care burden for sick people that had previously decided to eschew insurance because they didn't want to pay for it and now the fiddler has come to collect his due?

That's the difference between the current system and the proposed reforms in which nearly everyone is subject to an individual mandate. Non-poor "invincibles" are made to take responsibility for themselves (i.e. they must carry and pay for health insurance). The idea is to ease the burden these people place on others when they get in over their heads.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Startraveler

[WoIverine]

Meh, too many damn people here already anyways.

LOL, I'm just playing. I actually wonder how many of those people were terminal regardless of insurannce though.

Edited September 18, 2009 by SpiderCyde

[Harte]

That's the difference between the current system and the proposed reforms in which nearly everyone is subject to an individual mandate. Non-poor "invincibles" are made to take responsibility for themselves (i.e. they must carry and pay for health insurance). The idea is to ease the burden these people place on others when they get in over their heads.

Seems like I already said I agree with this idea.

However, the article doesn't even claim that the number of deaths they are talking about are actually attributable to lack of insurance (iirc.) They said "most of them" were or "primarily from" or some such.

I read the other day that 10,000 people with heart disease die needlessly every year in Britain. Also, the majority of people with some cancer (can't remember which) in GB that are diagnosed in stage one (imminently curable for this particular cancer) are already in stage two (too late, sorry about that old chap) by the time their turn comes up for treatment.

They have a public health system, so why would that be?

Obviously the article's writer is attempting to use statistics for a political purpose, and failing quite badly if you ask me.

Of course, if you don't know anything about statistics and the carefully crafted word, then you will fall for that stupid article hook line and sinker.

I suspect that even a 100% coverage single payer system wouldn't save most of the people the article's author is using to advance whatever agenda he's after.

Harte

[acidhead]

Seems like I already said I agree with this idea.

However, the article doesn't even claim that the number of deaths they are talking about are actually attributable to lack of insurance (iirc.) They said "most of them" were or "primarily from" or some such.

I read the other day that 10,000 people with heart disease die needlessly every year in Britain. Also, the majority of people with some cancer (can't remember which) in GB that are diagnosed in stage one (imminently curable for this particular cancer) are already in stage two (too late, sorry about that old chap) by the time their turn comes up for treatment.

They have a public health system, so why would that be?

Obviously the article's writer is attempting to use statistics for a political purpose, and failing quite badly if you ask me.

Of course, if you don't know anything about statistics and the carefully crafted word, then you will fall for that stupid article hook line and sinker.

I suspect that even a 100% coverage single payer system wouldn't save most of the people the article's author is using to advance whatever agenda he's after.

Harte

I agree....

Canada probably has the same numbers... even with our universal health care.

[Startraveler]

Seems like I already said I agree with this idea.

Excellent.

However, the article doesn't even claim that the number of deaths they are talking about are actually attributable to lack of insurance (iirc.) They said "most of them" were or "primarily from" or some such. . .I suspect that even a 100% coverage single payer system wouldn't save most of the people the article's author is using to advance whatever agenda he's after.

I think you're missing the point. Admittedly the news articles make the 45,000 number the focus but that number is calculated after the fact. The real figure of interest is this: "Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage." So you're correct that even a single-payer system doesn't remove all risks of death for everyone. But it takes a significant bite out of this particular risk factor.

As the authors of the study in question note:

The mechanisms by which health insurance affects mortality have been extensively studied. Indeed, the IOM issued an extensive report summarizing this evidence. The IOM identified mechanisms by which insurance improves health: getting care when needed, having a regular source of care, and continuity of coverage.

The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care than the insured. For instance, Lurie et al. demonstrated that among a medically indigent population in California, loss of government-sponsored insurance was associated with decreased use of physician services and worsening control of hypertension. The uninsured are also more likely to visit the emergency department30 and be admitted to the hospital for "ambulatory care sensitive conditions," suggesting that preventable illnesses are a consequence of uninsurance.

The chronically ill uninsured are also less likely to have a usual source of medical care, decreasing their likelihood of receiving preventative and primary care. Discontinuity of insurance is also harmful; those intermittently uninsured are more likely to die than the insured.

All of these factors likely play a role in the decline in health among middle-aged uninsured persons detected by Baker et al. This trend appears to reverse at age 65, when the majority gains access to Medicare coverage. Other studies suggest that extending health insurance not only improves health, but also may be cost effective.

A system that tends toward universal access will make strides in addressing these issues.

[Michelle]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214459/Care-cope-ageing-population-admits-health-secretary.html

If this article is accurate it might not work as well as people seem to think.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Then why not instead use an example of a health care system that does work well?

It's like warning someone not to get married by using all the countries/couples for examples that have a high divorce rate?

This is cherry picking at its finest!

[Startraveler]

If I skimmed that article correctly, they're pointing to a service that's not covered by the NHS; or at least not completely covered, as apparently payments for those care homes are means-tested (sort of like Medicaid here in the U.S.). How to deal with that is a question for them to tackle but it's not really an indictment of their system (which, by the way, is very, very different from what's on the table in the United States--follow the link in my signature).

[Kimi81]

Maybe if you ask the poor uninsured to give up their cable TV, IPOD or SUV then they can afford an insurance.

Spoken like a true Republican There are no genuinely poor people in this country, they are all SUV driving, Blackberry carrying moochers trying to rip the system off of the 500$ bucks a month they get in Welfare checks. And even if there were people really living in Poverty.....to hell with em anyway

[AROCES]

<br /><font size="3">Spoken like a true Republican <img src='http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> There are no genuinely poor people in this country, they are all SUV driving, Blackberry carrying moochers trying to rip the system off of the 500$ bucks a month they get in Welfare checks. And even if there were people really living in Poverty.....to hell with em anyway</font> <img src='http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

YUP, to hell with them indeed if the billions we already allocate for them is not enough.

[Lt_Ripley]

Maybe if you ask the poor uninsured to give up their cable TV, IPOD or SUV then they can afford an insurance.

lmao another stupid post from you ! so the majority of SUV owners are the poor ? lmao.

cable TV a month ? 50 ? IPOD ? does that even cost ? I don't know many poor who have them.

so , where do you get health insurance for 50 a month ?

your pathetic in your views. lost and so out of touch with reality that it's really funny. and your the average con ?

[Michelle]

Then why not instead use an example of a health care system that does work well?

It's like warning someone not to get married by using all the countries/couples for examples that have a high divorce rate?

This is cherry picking at its finest!

I didn't cherry pick...it was on the main page of a link that was in the world of the bizarre and thought it was interesting.

Over the years I've heard a lot of opinions from people that think health care systems in other countries are far superior to ours, but I've never seen anyone show any facts or figures on how it's effecting their overall economy.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Michelle

[The Silver Thong]

<br /><br /><br />

YUP, to hell with them indeed if the billions we already allocate for them is not enough.

Oh Aroces I know how you feel *sigh* I to feel bad for all those banks and insurance companies that got first dib's on the dough. I really hope that all those ceo's get to keep there retirement savings and there million dollar bonus's. I would be heart broken if I knew that just one CEO had to suffer because they grew old and had bad health cause damn dude how the hell are they going to pay for it. Tis is a sad day for the recipients of the bail out money. Sad indeed my friend.

Get off it man, health care is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. and those that still have nothing are given below par care. The billions you speak of did not go to individuals to pay for there health care so get off it man. If someone decides a $ 50.000.00 SUV is worth more than there families health then screw them not the poor.

[ninjadude]

These studies normally pops out whenever an agenda is being push, study here and there by experts here and there.

Fat dumb and stupid is no way to go thru life, son - Animal house. A truism that flies in the face of what you claim.

[ninjadude]

Are you saying that I should bear the health care burden for sick people that had previously decided to eschew insurance because they didn't want to pay for it and now the fiddler has come to collect his due?

No people who died not because the didn't want to pay but because they could not pay or were underinsured.

And no one is forcing you to pay for their insurance. Health insurance reform is to get all the companies to play by the same rules. YOU STILL PAY PREMIUMS. Certain measures are in play to lower costs and premiums overall and provide low cost alternatives for the very poor.

[ninjadude]

Then why not instead use an example of a health care system that does work well?

Medicare. Which is single payer. But then we've already compromised that position before we started.

Edited September 19, 2009 by ninjadude

[momentarylapseofreason]

I didn't cherry pick...it was on the main page of a link that was in the world of the bizarre and thought it was interesting.

Over the years I've heard a lot of opinions from people that think health care systems in other countries are far superior to ours, but I've never seen anyone show any facts or figures on how it's effecting their overall economy.

Actually I wasn't refrring to you at all.

My health care benefits were more generous in Germany, that's for sure. They are stingier here and almost everything takes longer.

I have to LOL when they claim that they have the best health care system over here. I guess if you never experienced anything better, you'd not know the difference now, would you?

Edited September 19, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[AROCES]

lmao another stupid post from you ! so the majority of SUV owners are the poor ? lmao.

cable TV a month ? 50 ? IPOD ? does that even cost ? I don't know many poor who have them.

so , where do you get health insurance for 50 a month ?

your pathetic in your views. lost and so out of touch with reality that it's really funny. and your the average con ?

50 here and 50 there, but your solution is have someone pay for it.