Researchers: Lack of Health Insurance kills 45,000 yearly in US

Lack of Health Insurance Kills 45,000 Yearly in U.S.

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

So, this is NOT a moral issue..? That's it's NOT a national priority..? C'mon.

Can anyone really, REALLY be against health insurance reform in the US..? Can you really be proud of a political party who feels this is how to bring about Obamas Waterloo..?

They should be so proud.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/9/2009 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by uaocteaou


Over 50,000+ would die under ObamaCare.
They would die waiting in line for surgery.
Many doctors have said they would quit and change
careers if ObamaCare passes.
The lines would get even longer!
If over loaded with too many patients a doctor on CNBC said
she could do it BUT it's like driving with only 1 hand.
Someone is going to get hurt.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


What I have cited is FACT, not partisan theory, such as you jus presented here.

A scientific study was done, these are the results, quoting the standard GOP line of BS is not helpful, nor does it lend any merit to your silly statement.

Don't forget about the other 200,000 that die because of ignorant doctors that managed to make it through college with a C average only to forget every damn thing they were taught once they left college. These are the doctors you argue with trying to tell them what's wrong with YOUR body.

reply to post by uaocteaou


My statement is true.
ObamaCare = Financial Disaster
Obama already got caught trying to cook the books by low balling
the Cap for Trade "Job Killer"!



If you really want free health care, i advise you to move to Canada.
Take a number.

38,000 die from the flu each year.
How many die from lightening?
How many die from slipping in the tub?
How many die from falling ice from the # tanks of aircraft?

People die. Next question.

And it looks like we will have 40,000 threads of these on deaths caused by people that do not want to pay for someone elses healthcare.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by uaocteaou

Lack of Health Insurance Kills 45,000 Yearly in U.S.

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

If I follow the logic of US Health insurance companies, would that not make not having health insurance a "pre-existing condition" in the same way that having an abusive spouse and pregnancy are considered pre-existing conditions?


[edit on 18-9-2009 by metamagic]

Originally posted by endisnighe
38,000 die from the flu each year.
How many die from lightening?
How many die from slipping in the tub?
How many die from falling ice from the # tanks of aircraft?

People die. Next question.

So, because people die, so what huh... If we could stop these deaths, it doesn't matter right.... yep, you're reeeeeeeeal smart.......

reply to post by uaocteaou

So, this is NOT a moral issue..? That's it's NOT a national priority..? C'mon.

It is a moral issue, but I don't think they should be using this kind of research to justify it.

Regardless if they were scared, regardless if they didn't want to go, these folks made little effort to get medical attention or waited to the last minute to get it. I am willing to say that those with insurance have also ran into similar results. Just because one has insurance doesn't mean they can afford what the insurance doesn't cover.

I am not against health insurance for all. I believe we need it. But we don't need a plan that is partisan in nature and doesn't really address the growing costs of premiums and healthcare costs.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by uaocteaou

 

Over 50,000+ would die under ObamaCare.
They would die waiting in line for surgery.
Many doctors have said they would quit and change
careers if ObamaCare passes.

The lines would get even longer!
If over loaded with too many patients a doctor on CNBC said
she could do it BUT it's like driving with only 1 hand.
Someone is going to get hurt.

Totally hypothetical, not a single shred of evidence to base an extrapolation on, unless you believe the lies about what happens in other western countries (which I confirm from decades of first hand experience are total fabrications), statements that are contradicted by the data.

What about the 100,000/mo of people dying in Africa right now.

Strawman arguments.

What I was trying to say is that all of these statistics are meaningless.

This is about taxes. That is it. I cannot argue about this anymore. Sorry.

The bottom line is about 2.5 million people die in the US yearly. Over 600,000 die from heart disease, almost 600,000 from cancer, over 100,000 from diabetes. Most of these diseases are treatable and some avoidable through life style.

On the other hand, a family member recently went to the emergency room and was admitted for and received surgery. This family member has no insurance.

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards H1N1...and consider that only 593 people in the United States have died from it (2,400 world-wide).

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards Homeland Defense and Anti-Terrorism (both Foreign and Domestic)...and consider that only 1,709 people worldwide have died last year due to Terrorism (and 0 of which were in the United States).

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards Airline safety, yet only 943 die in the US a year due to Airline accidents.

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement, yet only 16,137 people die from Violent Crime in a year in the United States.

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards preventing Drunk Driving, yet only 16,885 people die a year from Drunk Drivers in the United States.

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards Poison Control and Hazardous Materials Control, yet only 19,457 people die a year from Poisoning.

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards preventing Firearm deaths (both intentional and accidental), yet only 30,000 die in the US a year due to Firearms.

Consider how much money we have thrown as a Nation towards preventing Drug Use and Abuse, yet only 38,000 die in the US a year due to Drugs.

These 45,000 deaths annually are preventable deaths. We should consider Health Care to be equally, if not more important than the War on Drugs, Gun Control, Hazardous Materials, Drunk Driving, Violent Crime, Airline Safety, Homeland Security, Anti-Terrorism, and Pandemic Disease because more Americans die a year from lack of Health Care than any of those others that we spend Trillions of dollars on Annually.

You get back what you put in with social care. IF its underfunded you will see problems if its funded correctly then its the greatest thing a country can do. Im British and i adore the NHS it has its faults but that is down to a government that doesnt listen to its people when we say we want more invested in the NHS, instead it bankrolls corrupt banks and spends millions in PR exercises ( im going off on a tangent here). It doesnt mean your government is going to be socialist or some crazed communist regime but some parts of a country should be socialist such as medical care. I dont see people complaining when their money is going towards dropping bombs on people they have never met, so why is there outrage when someone they have never met might have there life saved by an organisation funded by the people for the people.

does any of that make sense hehe.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by R-evolve]

reply to post by jam321


I see where you're coming from, and in large part I agree with you. Problem is that some have taken the position that the way to "beat" Obama, is to kill any serious health insurance reform. Thus far, these are the only efforts we've had lately.

Now while I agree that a totally partisan approach isn't the "best" way to get it done, it seems that it's the only way we're going to get it.

I do disagree with you on the current plans bringing down costs, I think 4 of the 5 proposed bills would bring down costs.

Doing nothing can't be the answer, it can't be.

Originally posted by uaocteaou

Originally posted by endisnighe
38,000 die from the flu each year.
How many die from lightening?
How many die from slipping in the tub?
How many die from falling ice from the # tanks of aircraft?

People die. Next question.

So, because people die, so what huh... If we could stop these deaths, it doesn't matter right.... yep, you're reeeeeeeeal smart.......

But of course you also have to ask how many of those deaths might have been prevented if the people who were hit by lightening, slipped in the tub or had the flu would have had access to affordable medical care? I think endisnighe just unintentionally argued for your side.

But then of course, if he is arguing that the US should not reform health care because people die so why bother, I wonder why he does not make the same argument for reducing defense spending.... you know, there will always be attacks against the US and people will die as a result, so why bother trying to prevent them.

And endisnighe, that WAS the next question.

reply to post by uaocteaou

I do disagree with you on the current plans bringing down costs, I think 4 of the 5 proposed bills would bring down costs.

I refer you to darkelf post above. As long as Americans don't change their lifestyle you will not see the cost savings that these plans are predicting. And the cost savings written in the books are just that- estimates and projections.

Even you have to admit that Congresses record of saving us money has not always been on target.

Now while I agree that a totally partisan approach isn't the "best" way to get it done, it seems that it's the only way we're going to get it.

The reason it is partisan is because Americans are too busy defending one side or the other. Imagine if Americans lobbied both sides to compromise instead. But as you said there are many who want Obama to fail just as there are many who want the Republicans to stay down.

I have read many of the posts on here, and I say although I don't agree with you on several things, I agree with the overall concept that something has to be done.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by uaocteaou

 

If you really want free health care, i advise you to move to Canada.
Take a number.

The stories about rationed health care in Canada are myths started the US Insurance companies to scare you into protecting their profits. I've lived in Canada for decades and never known anyone, aside from elective procedures, who had to wait, especially for life threatening conditions.

There are cases of people waiting long times, but those are almost inevitably traceable back to some screw-up or mistake by someone, a doctor or someone else who just made a mistake or a kink in the system that has to get ironed out. Yes, the Canadian system is not perfect but it is pretty good and is almost universally loved in Canada. The big debate in Canada about health care is now how to make the existing system even better -- which is exactly the kind of debate that should always be had on an on-going basis.

They do not go into great detail about the methods used in the study, but the three examples they cited are far from sob stories in my eyes. The first guy was a freelance photographer...a far cry from a stable employment situation, and had a daughter on the way. If he was that worried about finances he should have sought a more lucrative career instead of floundering around chasing dreams. 2006 was the height of the real estate bubble, and it was a job-seeker's market.

The second story is very similar...poor employment choice in a state ( North Carolina) that was screaming for help back then. Is it the lack of health care, or the poor choices that led her to die?

Same with the third story, with the added bonus that she recently had medical procedures done and yet the Dr failed to notice anything wrong.

IMO all this is is propaganda designed to elicit sympathy for people who could have made better life choices.

Originally posted by glevel
They do not go into great detail about the methods used in the study, but the three examples they cited are far from sob stories in my eyes. The first guy was a freelance photographer...a far cry from a stable employment situation, and had a daughter on the way. If he was that worried about finances he should have sought a more lucrative career instead of floundering around chasing dreams. 2006 was the height of the real estate bubble, and it was a job-seeker's market.

The second story is very similar...poor employment choice in a state ( North Carolina) that was screaming for help back then. Is it the lack of health care, or the poor choices that led her to die?

Same with the third story, with the added bonus that she recently had medical procedures done and yet the Dr failed to notice anything wrong.

IMO all this is is propaganda designed to elicit sympathy for people who could have made better life choices.

I thought "chasing dreams" was the American way. If nobody chased dreams, you wouldn't be able to enjoy your current lifestyle with computers, plastic, et cetera.

Saying that these people died because they made "poor career choices" is about as cold hearted and irrelevant as it gets in my opinion.

You are making assumptions about each of these people based on nothing other than what they were doing professionally at the time of their deaths, and that's a subjective argument. I could say that these were the only jobs available to each of them, and they had to feed their families. I wouldn't know what I'm talking about any more than you did when you initially posted it.

It's a sad argument, wrong and sad.

The facts are that these people died because they didn't have health insurance, Period. Now THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CHANGE.

Casting dispersions on the character of these dead people is a pretty low tactic, and carries no weight in a civilized nation.