A new study estimates that 45,000 deaths a year can be linked to the absence of ins.

[Revmitchell]

...........There has been some criticism of this type of research and its ability to find a direct causal link. A 2003 commentary by Richard Kronick in Medical Care Research and Review questioned whether other factors beyond uninsurance would reduce the greater mortality for the uninsured. Kronick recreated the Franks study using more recent data and, after adjusting for various factors, also found a 25 percent greater risk of death for the uninsured. But he said: "It seems likely that if we were able to control for additional factors, such as health-related behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and risk-taking behaviors more generally), wealth, or value placed on health or health care, the estimated effect of being uninsured would be reduced further. What is uncertain is whether the reduction would bring the estimated hazard ratio all the way down to 1.0 or whether an independent effect of being uninsured would remain." (Other studies, including the Franks study, did adjust for smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity and income.)

Another recent report, written by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill and her husband, economist Dave O’Neill, said "that lack of health insurance is not likely to be the major factor causing higher mortality rates among the uninsured. The uninsured — particularly the involuntarily uninsured — have multiple disadvantages that in themselves are associated with poor health." Those disadvantages include education level and income. The O’Neills’ study, published by the conservative Employment Policies Institute, separated those it deemed "voluntarily uninsured" (anyone earning 2.5 times the poverty level) from those considered to be "involuntarily uninsured." The study looked at data on persons aged 51 to 61 from the Health and Retirement Survey and determined the "involuntarily uninsured" had an 11 percent higher probability of dying; the number dropped to 3 percent when controlling for smoking as well as education and income. The “voluntarily uninsured” had a 2 percent to 3 percent greater probability of dying. EPI, the publisher of the study, supports business interests and has said that the “living wage campaign” is “an organized effort to force employees to inject a welfare mentality into the workplace.”

It’s important to remember that all of these studies give estimates based on modeling and data with limits. As the Urban Institute wrote: "At the most basic level, the above estimates are not precise ‘body counts.’ Rather, the reader should view them as reasonable indicators of the general magnitude of excess mortality that results from
uninsurance."...............

http://factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/

 

[Crabtownboy]

How many uninsured deaths are acceptable to you?

From the same report:

The Institute of Medicine’s Dr. Ayanian, however, did tell Congress that research shows gaining coverage makes a difference: "Fortunately, our Committee also found good news to report: when uninsured people acquire health insurance they can experience both immediate and long-term improvements in their health."

http://factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/

 

[donnA]

Since we're talking acceptable and unacceptable deaths,, how many death by abortion are acceptable for the liberal? Yet they approved to increase those deaths in a most horrible manner.
Isn't God in charge of when and if you die from a disease or illness? How many insured people died from disease or illness last year?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Since we're talking acceptable and unacceptable deaths,, how many death by abortion are acceptable for the liberal? Yet they approved to increase those deaths in a most horrible manner.
Isn't God in charge of when and if you die from a disease or illness? How many insured people died from disease or illness last year?

Totally off topic. Please do not try to derail the discussion. Thanks.

The OP did not say why he selected the particular paragraphs to quote or explain his position. The paragraphs appeared to be negative to the idea of anyone dieing from lack of healt care, so I wanted to know how many are acceptable to him. How many are acceptable to you?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Estimates say that over 1 million North Koreans have died due to sanctions. Madeline Albright said she did not lose any sleep over the 500,000 Iraqis that died under our sanctions. We are about to put Iran under the same. I'd like to ask the sanctimonious libbies how many of those deaths are acceptable ?

And since NEWSWEEK has admitted that end of life care needs to be curbed, how many premature old-age deaths will be acceptable ?

 

[donnA]

Totally off topic. Please do not try to derail the discussion. Thanks.

The OP did not say why he selected the particular paragraphs to quote or explain his position. The paragraphs appeared to be negative to the idea of anyone dieing from lack of healt care, so I wanted to know how many are acceptable to him. How many are acceptable to you?

I asked a question in line with the health care topic.
Got no answer I see.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Isn't God in charge of when and if you die from a disease or illness? How many insured people died from disease or illness last year?

Without modern medicine many of us would be dead by how ... did we interfere with God's appointed time for us to die by going to the doctor and receiving modern health care?

We do hook people up to machines and we do say we are keeping them "artifically alive". Is that interfering with God's will?

There is no way to prove an argument on this one way or the other. What is your opinion?

 

[webdog]

100% of deaths can be linked to living in a fallen world, and as long as it remains that way, nothing will ever be perfect. Since liberals want to protect everyone, there needs to be something done about the following:

One American dies in a hospital from a medical error or a lethal infection every 6 minutes.
One American killed by a traffic accident every 12 minutes.
One American accidentally poisoned to death every 27 minutes.
One American killed in an accident at home every 29 minutes.
One American killed in a fall every 31 minutes.
One American killed by a drunk driver every 31 minutes.
One American murdered every 32 minutes.
One American drowned every 159 minutes .

According to this, the government should take over hospitals, the automotive industry (oh...wait a minute...), anything that can poison, hard surfaces and ladders, walking, alcohol (been there, done that), all weapons, hate, swimming pools, oceans and lakes.

Please, Uncle Sam...protect us!!!

 

[Twizzler]

How many uninsured deaths are acceptable to you?

To be blunt, CTB, all of them are acceptable to me. Just as all deaths of folk who have health insurance are acceptable to me. We all die; we all cling to this life as long as we are able, but in the end it is pointless. We're all going to die.

I simply don't see how healthcare is a basic human right.

 

[Crabtownboy]

To be blunt, CTB, all of them are acceptable to me. Just as all deaths of folk who have health insurance are acceptable to me. We all die; we all cling to this life as long as we are able, but in the end it is pointless. We're all going to die.

I simply don't see how healthcare is a basic human right.

So you do not care at all about someone like the little boy who died from a tooth infection? His parents had no insurance, no money and no dentist would work on him gratis.

 

[billreber]

CTB, most current "health insurance" plans DO NOT include dental work. Dental work is almost always a separate insurance plan (except in the case of dental work needed because of such things as auto accidents -- that is covered by "my" auto insurance!). Is dental care included in the current discussions in Washington DC? (I am serious -- I do not know the answer).

Comprehensive health insurance should include dental work. Perhaps the laws should be changed to require emergency dental work to be provided, just as current law requires emergency health care to be provided. Of course, that would mean additional costs, I am sure, and President Obama has insisted there would be no increased costs! (LOL!!)

Now back to the OP. I am reminded of something I learned decades ago, when I was a kid. My step-dad taught me "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." I am not going to trust ANY figures (from either side of this argument) that are not based on actual head-counting. Even then, I am somewhat worried about "sampling" instead of 100% population counts. Since I have not seen ANY actual counts of actual deaths caused by someone being "uninsured", (but just statistical estimates), I cannot determine if any such deaths could have been prevented by insuring said persons. There are too many variables.

Does the death of any human being under any circumstance mean we are doing something wrong in our insurance and other policies? I rather tend to answer with a resounding "NO!" After all, we do not control life and death. God does! Even when we try to extend life using machines, we will still die!

That being said, I must agree with Donna that the question you asked ("How many uninsured deaths are acceptable to you?") and her question ("how many death by abortion are acceptable for the liberal?") are different sides of the same topic. In fact, since abortion is not being specifically excluded from the health bills being considered, it becomes a vital part of the discussion. If it is not specifically excluded, it WILL be required to be paid by the insurers, public or private. How about answering Donna's question for us? How many deaths by abortion are acceptable for the liberal?

Also, as webdog pointed out, there are many deaths NOT caused by abortion or by lack of insurance. Are liberals willing to try to eliminate ALL deaths, or just those of the "uninsured"? My guess is that all of us will die anyway, regardless of what insurance changes are mandated by law. That is, of course, unless the Lord comes first! I like His "life insurance plan" best of all!

Let's concentrate on getting reform in areas that will do some good. Examples include: tort reform, that will lower doctors' insurance costs and therefore our doctors fees; tort reform will also eliminate extra tests and procedures from being prescribed, just to protect a doctor from the threat of a lawsuit; expanding the places where insurance companies can sell insurance, rather than the current system where states can refuse entry into the state by companies; and allowing and/or mandating the ability to keep an insurance policy when you change a job or move.

Bill :godisgood:

 

[Alcott]

How many uninsured deaths are acceptable to you?

How many insured deaths are acceptable to you?

 

[HankD]

How many uninsured deaths are acceptable to you?

From the same report:

Hi CBT,

No one has been able to prove whether or not the now deunct Health Care Bill HR3200 will actually save lives or ultimately allow for more untimely deaths.

We were severly scolded for using terms like "Death Panel", "eugenics", "rationing", etc.

However upon close scrutiny of the bill and reading/comparing the writings of the Presidents advisors concerning these terms, these labels were accurate though they had different names in the Bill and supporting documents.

No matter how you cut this pie there will have to be rationing.

As the President said "hard decisions will have to be made" Translation: 20-50 year olds will receive the greatest priority because of their "optimum social investment" and the greatest hope of Return on Investment (ROI).

In the paraphrased words of Dr. Ezekiel Imanuel (Healthcare advisor to the president and probably the future Health Care CZAR - Rahm is his brother BTW) all 65 year olds were once 25 year olds, so everyone is treated equally.

The elderly and those who have a low priorty profile "end of life" disease (such as End Stage Renal Disease - ESRD which requires kidney dialysis to "end of life") will be consigned to hospice care and a comfortable exodus from planet earth (better than nothing I suppose) unless the family can afford to buy a kidney dialysis machine and/or take the health care "recipient" to another country or planet for further treatment.

So, it remains to be seen if there will be more or less untimley deaths after the passing of the "latest and greatest" version of HR3200 which BTW the Dems have decided (via a killed amendment) we will not be able to examine before it comes to vote.

Welcome to the real world.

HankD

 

[Twizzler]

So you do not care at all about someone like the little boy who died from a tooth infection? His parents had no insurance, no money and no dentist would work on him gratis.

Sure I care about him, CTB; it's a crying shame, so are all the starving children in 3rd world countries. Don't paint me as an evil, child killer simply because I don't see how we, as tax-payers, should be paying more taxes to help these poor folk. When we contribute to charitable institutions we always ask what percentage of our contribution is actually getting to the needy and for the most part it's usually in the 90% range, which is really great. What do we suppose that number will be when the gov't is in charge of health care? It sure won't be nearly as much as World Vision or any of a good number of others.

If I used your arguments against you in this matter, I'd be asking why in the world aren't we using our tax dollars to help those poor children in the other countries, don't you care about them?

I'm a huge believer in giving what we can, supporting the needy. The TRULY needy.

If the family of the little boy that died had approached, or been a part of my church, he would have gotten the care he needed.

Don't you DARE claim that I don't care about the needy just because I don't think the gov't should be involved in charity. I contribute to charities that are making a real difference.

How can you possibly support this socialist regime that's trying to take over our entire life in this way?

 

[KenH]

100% of deaths can be linked to living in a fallen world

Amen. :thumbs:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So you do not care at all about someone like the little boy who died from a tooth infection? His parents had no insurance, no money and no dentist would work on him gratis.

This is pure baloney. An doctor would have treated the infection, a dentist would have fixed the tooth.

You are a liar.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is pure baloney. An doctor would have treated the infection, a dentist would have fixed the tooth.

You are a liar.

I will accept an apology.

With health care, even government run health care he would still be alive ... but you will blame the mother.

For Want of a Dentist
Pr. George's Boy Dies After Bacteria From Tooth Spread to Brain



By Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.

Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-overlooked concern in the debate over universal health coverage: dental care.

Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some, including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I stand by my statement that doctors cure infections, not dentists. I know of several people who dentists have refused to treat until their infection is gone.

I noticed the article you posted said the extraction MIGHT have saved him. It seems he had an ignored condition that was allowed to progress. You and Mary are both telling fibs about this. Then she says the family lost medicaid, right before she says medicaid dentists are so hard to find. The article is full of holes.

As far as the apology goes, you owe me like 5. I won't even consider apologizing until you have taken back some things you have said.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I stand by my statement that doctors cure infections, not dentists. I know of several people who dentists have refused to treat until their infection is gone.

I noticed the article you posted said the extraction MIGHT have saved him. It seems he had an ignored condition that was allowed to progress. You and Mary are both telling fibs about this. Then she says the family lost medicaid, right before she says medicaid dentists are so hard to find. The article is full of holes.

As far as the apology goes, you owe me like 5. I won't even consider apologizing until you have taken back some things you have said.

Dentists also can give prescriptions to fight infection. I know because my dentist has given me prescriptions for antibiotics.

I knew you would never apologize and would find some excuse for not facing the fact that with health care this child would still be alive. In fact, his tooth would never have reached the point of becoming infected if he had care under health care ... and his brother would not have had such serious dental problems either.

Fact:

1. There was no dental nor health care for the child
2. The child died a preventable death
3. Without health care more children and adults will die unnecessarily.

Do you care?

I will still accept an apology.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I also notice you expect me to believe that they couldn't find anyone to cough up for an $80 extraction (that MIGHT have saved him), yet they could find people willing to perform over $250,000 in yet unpaid medical services.

SNIP This kid should have been brought to a doctor long before he was. His death looks like negligence, to me. Do you care ?

And you still owe me several apologies. SNIP