The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

No health coverage causes 45,000 deaths a year.

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
tom On March 16, 2023
i love .....





Notlongagoinaplacenotfaraway,
#1New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 12:44:55
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32882064/ns/health-health_care/

And yet people are still arguing against a public option. I let the numbers speak for themselves
rocket48 On May 23, 2013




, Texas
#2New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 12:50:18
I wonder how they are getting those numbers. Most people I know without insurance gets medical care.
How many people die each year that do have insurance?

Talk about media scare tactics. Total B.S.
sAeGeSpAeNe On October 05, 2021
Part-time Nidologist





The other Bristol..., Connecti
#3New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 12:52:32
So,....are you, in effect, saying that all the other deaths that occur in a year (well in excess of 45,000, mind you!) are caused by having health coverage? That would mean that we'd be less likely to leave this world if we had no health insurance,.. but that would mean that the government plan for Social Security would have to pay more, for a longer period of time, and prolong the agony of not having any money in the till to spend on pork-barrel legislation.
tom On March 16, 2023
i love .....





Notlongagoinaplacenotfaraway,
#4New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 12:53:20
@rocket48 Said

I wonder how they are getting those numbers. Most people I know without insurance gets medical care.
How many people die each year that do have insurance?

Talk about media scare tactics. Total B.S.



The study was done by harvard uni. It says that people who don't have health insurence have a 40% higher risk of death than those who do have health insurence
rocket48 On May 23, 2013




, Texas
#5New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 13:11:02
36,000 people die from flu each year and they say that is a low number, so why would 45,000 people be a high number?
Again, please tell me how many people die each year with coverage?
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#6New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 14:52:07
I was listening to FAUX news last night and was getting so mad at the Obama bashing...I mean seriously, the way they were talking. "Obama if you're watching, we need you to blah blah blah." WTF? I then asked my dad why he was watching this instead of another unbiased station.

Anyways...While watching it...Fox news took a poll on the proposed health care plan and it "resulted" in 62% who wanted private and 20% that wanted national health care. When asked if they would rather have the current or "Obamacare"...the result was 46% current system, and 37% Obamacare.

I was extremely pissed because it was a completely biased poll...not a fair number of republicans/democrats.

The way they worded their questions...referring to the new health care plan as Obamacare...they way they asked the questions. https://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/17/10064/
El_Tino On October 12, 2023
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#7New Post! Sep 18, 2009 @ 21:12:03
People, this is specifically people who would not have died had they had health insurance.

Making statements referring to how many people with insurance died is nonsensical in the context of this study.

That would be like someone saying that people without cars walk more than people with cars, then someone saying "yeah well people with cars still sometimes walk".
rocket48 On May 23, 2013




, Texas
#8New Post! Sep 19, 2009 @ 00:07:44
@eL_TinO Said

People, this is specifically people who would not have died had they had health insurance.

Making statements referring to how many people with insurance died is nonsensical in the context of this study.

That would be like someone saying that people without cars walk more than people with cars, then someone saying "yeah well people with cars still sometimes walk".



And how could "they" know that the person would have gotten health care had they had insurance. Some people procrastinate on going to the doctor and I just don;t see how the study could be accurate.
sAeGeSpAeNe On October 05, 2021
Part-time Nidologist





The other Bristol..., Connecti
#9New Post! Sep 19, 2009 @ 02:15:18
@eL_TinO Said

People, this is specifically people who would not have died had they had health insurance.

Making statements referring to how many people with insurance died is nonsensical in the context of this study.

That would be like someone saying that people without cars walk more than people with cars, then someone saying "yeah well people with cars still sometimes walk".



Tino, forgive me for snickering out loud, but how are you supposed to come up with a scientifically valid count of "people who would not have died had they had health insurance"? What conditions would apply to validate this supposition, in order to gather the emperical data for such a survey? You're talking intangibles...

Also worth snickering over is the number of deaths: 45,000. When looking at statistics that are posted on the net, such as those for auto-related fatalities, the number is approx. 37,270 for 2008*.
This is just a sliver of the overall 'pie of death.' When it's your time to go, you're going.... whether you've got Health Insurance or not!





* -- source for same.
El_Tino On October 12, 2023
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#10New Post! Sep 19, 2009 @ 07:17:14
@rocket48 Said

And how could "they" know that the person would have gotten health care had they had insurance. Some people procrastinate on going to the doctor and I just don;t see how the study could be accurate.


Take a class or two in statistics or research methods. It's not incumbent upon me or them to try to impart such complicated things.

But if I were, I could imagine the following scenario that one might decide to study. It's a fairly straightforward research design.

1. Identify people with high blood pressure.
2. Find out if said people have insurance or not.
3. Check on them 5 years later and see how many are dead.

Supposing the uninsured group had 40% more deaths, one might infer that lack of insurance had something to do with it. There would be people in both groups that "procrastinate" as you put it, it makes no difference on the study results.

@Saegespaene Said

Tino, forgive me for snickering out loud, but how are you supposed to come up with a scientifically valid count of "people who would not have died had they had health insurance"? What conditions would apply to validate this supposition, in order to gather the emperical data for such a survey? You're talking intangibles...


See above.

Quote:
Also worth snickering over is the number of deaths: 45,000. When looking at statistics that are posted on the net, such as those for auto-related fatalities, the number is approx. 37,270 for 2008*.
This is just a sliver of the overall 'pie of death.' When it's your time to go, you're going.... whether you've got Health Insurance or not!
* -- source for same.


So are you suggesting that we shouldn't do anything to try to prevent deaths? In that case, let's get rid of healthcare altogether. It's too expensive.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Health & Fitness
Fri May 06, 2011 @ 13:19
21 2269
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Thu Mar 17, 2011 @ 01:46
4 1063
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Sun Jun 20, 2010 @ 15:22
0 368
New posts   Politics
Sat Oct 03, 2009 @ 16:16
1 655
New posts   Politics
Thu Feb 07, 2008 @ 22:12
82 2751