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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 

I think you are mistaken, the fact is they died because they chose to enter into a lifestyle that would not allow them to afford healthcare...as far as I can tell noone held a gun to their heads.

As for dreams...that is exactly what they are- dreams. Heck, I would love to spend the rest of my life roaming the mountains here in NW Arizona looking for gold...can I get free healthcare for that? Maybe someone will pay off the rest of my mortgage too, and maybe I can get some of those food stamps...yum!

You want free health care-fine. But stop using "poor me" propaganda to try to accomplish your mission,




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by glevel
reply to post by uaocteaou
 

I think you are mistaken, the fact is they died because they chose to enter into a lifestyle that would not allow them to afford healthcare...as far as I can tell noone held a gun to their heads.

As for dreams...that is exactly what they are- dreams. Heck, I would love to spend the rest of my life roaming the mountains here in NW Arizona looking for gold...can I get free healthcare for that? Maybe someone will pay off the rest of my mortgage too, and maybe I can get some of those food stamps...yum!

You want free health care-fine. But stop using "poor me" propaganda to try to accomplish your mission,


So, health insurance should be available only to those with white collar jobs.

Apparently you are terribly misinformed my friend, there are millions of people who can afford it, but because of one thing or another, it's not available to them, such as the garbage tactics of denying coverage to someone assaulted by a spouse..

Then there are those who just can't afford a 30% premium increase every year and lose their insurance.

It's not all about career choices as you contend, if only it were that easy of a situation. To imply that's all what this is about is either dishonest or simply bad advice.

You don't even offer facts, just opinion presented as a simple fact, nothing new from some, but still not worth a damn of an argument for opposing health insurance reform.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


Not a myth. Truth.
Canadians are getting on airplanes and flying down to Texas
for surgery as we speak.
As a matter of fact there are companies in Canada who arrange
it. That's all they do. Arrange the airline tickets, hotel reservations,
the hospital appointments, recovery and the flight back to Canada
where they were told to wait.....wait.....wait.....did you die yet?...
.....wait.....wait.....What?! You flew to Texas for surgery!? Why???
--
Timely Medical Link - Great Waiting Times! - CHS-

-Medical tourism in Canada- Google search will point you toward the
Truth.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Eurisko2012]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Eurisko2012]


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
"Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes."

Source


It is therefore a moral imperative that the government set up a free shuttle service to provide all Americans with their transportation needs!


Not only would my solution save just as many lives as yours, but it would also prevent millions of needless injuries, which without a doubt congest and strain the current healthcare system.

Added benefits:
-Freed up police and emergency medical services means quicker response times, preventing crime and saving more lives
-Average American will save hundreds of dollars a month on car insurance, allowing them to eat healthier or enjoy more recreational activities, lowering stress and saving even more lives
-Less insurance payouts for damages and injuries, lowering insurance premiums, again saving Americans money, which can be applied to other areas of life, perhaps even donated to charity, helping to end hunger in Africa, saving more lives


My moral imperative > your moral imperative



[edit on 18-9-2009 by digger2381]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There is no doubt in my mind, that lack of preventive care which is in part due to non-existent insurance, is a major contributor to the worsening state of health in our nation. I've learned I had problems (which are now treated or have been treated) during routine checkups and consultations. That's very important and to say that everyone is covered because anyone can go to ER is pretty damn stupid (and GWB said that, surprise surprise).



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


Over 50,000+ would die under ObamaCare.

Says who?


Originally posted by Eurisko2012
They would die waiting in line for surgery.

Poor people are dying today already waiting in line for surgery, are they not?


Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Many doctors have said they would quit and change
careers if ObamaCare passes.

How many? More than a handful?


Originally posted by Eurisko2012
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.

Well, the lines won't get much longer, if it's only a handful of doctors who will resign. Sorry, but where I live health insurance is obligatory. For those who are unemployed and can't afford to be privately insured, the state covers all expenses. So, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about with the US health care reform. Is there anybody here who denies that such a reform is badly needed?

[edit on 18-9-2009 by WalterRatlos]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by WalterRatlos]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by WalterRatlos]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WalterRatlos
 


Quite a large number of doctors would quit.
Click here:
Latest Poll : Doctors say goodbye!!!
I'm glad the Public Option is dead.
Apparently, everything else is dead. Team Obama is having a
very BAD September.


----------------------------------------------
Location: Epirus??? Is that Greece?

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 

OK, I am not disputing that poor people need health care...Just that people that make poor life choices should not be encouraged in their endeavors. I can state this with confidence because once upon a time I was one of these people.

Without boring you with a long story let me just say that in 1986 , while attending college, I was arrested twice for underage drinking, once for possession of MJ, and once for discharging a firearm on campus. I was expelled, lost my student loan, given 90 days in jail, and put on probation for 5 years. I was lucky I escaped my actions without a felony conviction. One of the requirements of my probation was to gain full time employment- so I got a job as a laborer on a construction crew. I worked hard, asked questions, and read books about carpentry , and within a year and a half I was able to do almost everything anyone else could do. Not only did my hard work and dedication catch the attention of my boss, but it caught the attention of the general contractor we built houses for. He offered to put me through community college if I agreed to pay him back half the money and work for him for 3 years without asking for a raise...of course I said yes.

The thing I remember most is sitting in his office and him pointing to a picture on the wall of the GOYA factory...GOYA is a company that makes hispanic foods. He asked me why I thought it was up there, and I replied I have no clue. He said that his dad gave it to him, and his dad told him GOYA stands for " GET OFF YOUR A**""....I will never, ever forget that.

Next year will be 20 years since I got my associates degree in construction management, and it has served me well.Although work is sporadic now I have other ways to supplment my income...all because I live by that motto...GOYA.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
So all the doctores will quit if it pases and become law?

They will do what they done to destroy every other occupation.

Import them.

Heck Cuba has a whole bunch of doctors down there.

Castro would be more than happy to send them here to help us out.

Most of those without insurance speak only Spanish anyway.

They want to destroy our way of life import more third world residents,kill off the home grown citizens(they bitch to much) and call what is left "Americans"

How many of those who died here without insurance should not have been here to begin with?

Please give us a break with the one sided surveys and polls.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


Thats what you git for being LAZY!!!

Not my problem!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
So all the doctores will quit if it pases and become law?

They will do what they done to destroy every other occupation.

Import them.

Heck Cuba has a whole bunch of doctors down there.

Castro would be more than happy to send them here to help us out.

Most of those without insurance speak only Spanish anyway.

They want to destroy our way of life import more third world residents,kill off the home grown citizens(they bitch to much) and call what is left "Americans"

How many of those who died here without insurance should not have been here to begin with?

Please give us a break with the one sided surveys and polls.


No doubt all the doctors practice medicine for the money and because it is easy work..

Most doctors will stop being doctors and work at pep boys -

Certainly if we show the other side of the poll it will reveal that the dead people in question actually checked the wrong box and are not dead, happens all the time.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
As shown in the following table, the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures— in the US annually is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is itself the leading cause of death and injury in the US.

Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic Cost of Medical Intervention

Condition..........................Deaths...........Cost
Adverse Drug Reactions.....106,000............12 Billion
Medical Error......................98,000..............2 Billion
Bedsores...........................115,000...........55 Billion
Infection.............................88,000.............5 Billion
Malnutrition........................ 108,800........ --
Outpatients.........................199,000......... 77 Billion
Unnecessary Procedures...... 37,136 .... 122 Billion
Surgery -Related................ 32,000............. 9 Billion

TOTAL................................783,936 .........282 Billion

Source...
Life Extension Magazine

Just Sayin'...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


Aren't these statistics the same as an alarm sales man giving you the statistics on how many people have been burglarized because of not having an alarm system? The question remains the same, how do you know that your product would have prevented the ultimate outcome.

Secondly people can not afford more taxes. The people of this Country are broke, the Government is broke. Yet the insurance companies are still one of the most profitable industries in the Nation. How can anyone support giving more of the peoples' wealth (or lack there of) to these corporations.

The bottom line is that "health care reform" does not need to be done in the Governmental sector and does not need to involve the insurance industry. And it need not force people to participate that choose not to.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by harvib]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
just so you can read the paper here is a PDF

pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
(sorry you have to cut and paste...)

9004 individuals between the ages of 17 and 65 contributed, making 80,657 person years of follow up time.
The research was conducted by the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, they analyzed those who had been involved in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys between 1986-1994.(they were asked detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and condition of health and were also examined by doctors. The participants were then tracked to see who died by the year 2000)

The study shows a 40% increased risk of death for those who are uninsured.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those of kidney disease and many other common killers.

There are 44,840 deaths a year associated with being uninsured that is one every 12 minutes.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by the_weirdness]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by the_weirdness]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by the_weirdness]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by the_weirdness
 


These quotes highlight the problem with this "study":


Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein



Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown



He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang





The study shows a 40% increased risk of death for those who are uninsured. Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those of kidney disease and many other common killers.


First off correlation does not imply causation. What this study found is that people who are more prone to a higher risk lifestyle are more likely to expire before those who exercise, eat right, and are mindful of their health.

I would wager that a greater number of those who smoke, drink, and don't exercise also don't have library cards as compared to those who don't drink, don't smoke, and do exercise. Therefore using this study's logic I would be accurate in stating that lack of a library card leads to an early death.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
These quotes highlight the problem with this "study":


Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein



Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown



He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang


So the problem is that it uses statistics? Oooookay...

Might as well discard a vast majority of science.


First off correlation does not imply causation. What this study found is that people who are more prone to a higher risk lifestyle are more likely to expire before those who exercise, eat right, and are mindful of their health.


It's not a mere correlational study. It's a cox model - a complex regression model. I'm not sure you understand the data or study that well...


I would wager that a greater number of those who smoke, drink, and don't exercise also don't have library cards as compared to those who don't drink, don't smoke, and do exercise. Therefore using this study's logic I would be accurate in stating that lack of a library card leads to an early death.


The data assesses the mortality of people controlling for other variables (e.g., age, gender, poverty, smoking, drinking, BMI etc etc) and shows that lack of insurance increases mortality by 40%. It's all there in the paper, it also outlines limitations beyond the mere use of statistics.

And thanks for the link to the article, the weirdness.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





So the problem is that it uses statistics? Oooookay...


No the problem is how the "study" uses the statistics.




It's not a mere correlational study. It's a cox model - a complex regression model. I'm not sure you understand the data or study that well...


Maybe you could enlighten me then.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

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.

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]


Yes you are correct but they don't die from a simple infection that has ravaged through someone's body because instead of being able to afford a doctors visit he had to buy clothes for his kids.....People without health insurance DONT GO TO DOCTORS. So, they do die from stupid things that couldve been helped and guess who gets to pay for those kids to be taken care of till their 18.

Thank you for making this thread, I feel so alone on here in my wanting of this reform, you've made me very happy tonight



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
No the problem is how the "study" uses the statistics.


How does it use them?




Maybe you could enlighten me then.


I just did. It's a cox model, a class of survival analysis. If you don't know statistics that well, you're not really gonna get the gist.

It takes several explanatory variables and assesses their impact on the probability of a particular event (Hazard function). It does this by determining a type of regression model which can be adjusted to extract/isolate particular variables of interest. For this study, it regresses 'survival/death' via the numerous variables of interest. Here, whether a person has insurance or not was of most interest. It shows the probability of the event over time - in this instance death. And not having insurance leads to a 40% increased probability of death when controlling for all the other variables.

Used across medicine, but also other areas. A well known and well-established statistical technique.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





And not having insurance leads to a 40% increased probability of death when controlling for all the other variables.


I am trying to understand as I am not a statistician. Doesn't a statement like the one above mean isolating causation? If so how was this done? What assumptions must be accurate in order for the model to be accurate? What if a variable is dependent on another variable (i.e. unemployment vs. likelihood of insurance).

Also if I am reading this correctly being unemployed also leads to a 40% increased probability of death, being black leads to a 32% increase, being male leads to a 37% increase. The model most certainly can't lead one to reasonably believe that those variables are the direct cause of death as the article infers about being uninsured. Can it?

Edit to add: I hope I am not coming across as antagonistic or argumentative, I am genuinely trying to understand. I have just always been under the impression that for statistics to accurately predict causation that certain accurate assumptions must be made. However I am ready to stand corrected.




[edit on 19-9-2009 by harvib]





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join