Study links 45,000 deaths per year due to lack of insurance

[VABills]

Also, over 85% of the hospitals in this country are not-for-profit, so they are required to treat anyone regardless of health insurance, illegal or not. And they do.

 

So yet another bull **** argument on your part.

[Kelly the Dog]

And over 3 million people die in this country every year that have insurance. Whats your point? insurance didn't save them.

It's not even worth the explanation.

[Kelly the Dog]

There seem to be some conflicting polls out there. So I guess we'll just pick the ones that suit our desires.

 

Investors Business Daily says just the opposite: 65% oppose and "Perhaps the most shocking result: 45% of these professionals said they would consider closing their practices or retiring early if the reforms now under consideration were enacted."

 

I think this is where someone pisses on IBD and it's polling capabilities while suggesting that NE School of Medicine knows what it's doing.

 

That IBD report was laughable. They were all talking about a total government takeover of the health system. THAT IS NOT THE PLAN. And in the study I linked, only 10% of the doctors wanted a total public system, too. If they want to address the actual plan we can discuss it, too.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Also, over 85% of the hospitals in this country are not-for-profit, so they are required to treat anyone regardless of health insurance, illegal or not. And they do.

 

So yet another bull **** argument on your part.

 

 

Not sure if that is still the correct number, a lot have been converting over to for profit, still then that begs the question of how will we be adding to the number of patients if we insure them, you can't have it both ways...

[IDBillzFan]

That IBD report was laughable. They were all talking about a total government takeover of the health system. THAT IS NOT THE PLAN. And in the study I linked, only 10% of the doctors wanted a total public system, too. If they want to address the actual plan we can discuss it, too.

What's laughable is that you keep referring to "a plan." There is no plan. None. So how can any of these polls can be right or wrong when, in fact, nothing exists but a bunch of proposals coupled with a crapload of speeches.

 

There is no "actual plan." If there is, please provide a link here to the actual bill proposing this actual plan that you keep referring to. Once we all see this actual bill for this actual plan, then let's poll.

[VABills]

Not sure if that is still the correct number, a lot have been converting over to for profit, still then that begs the question of how will we be adding to the number of patients if we insure them, you can't have it both ways...

It is. My wife is management in one of those hospitals. It used to be over 90% but now down to 85%. And not for profit in hospital terms is not what you think.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

What's laughable is that you keep referring to "a plan." There is no plan. None. So how can any of these polls can be right or wrong when, in fact, nothing exists but a bunch of proposals coupled with a crapload of speeches.

 

There is no "actual plan." If there is, please provide a link here to the actual bill proposing this actual plan that you keep referring to. Once we all see this actual bill for this actual plan, then let's poll.

Oh but there is, at least one that is getting serious considerations as a basis to start from:

 

The Baucus Senate Bill is out

 

and

 

Click here!

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

It is. My wife is management in one of those hospitals. It used to be over 90% but now down to 85%. And not for profit in hospital terms is not what you think.

Oh I have an understand of not for profit in hospital terms, put myself through undergrad school working in the billing and finance depts at GW Hosp. and my wife is nurse. I have a certain amount of insight on this deal too and both the pluses and minuses of both, but I hear you.

 

I was just thinking the 85% number was even lower say around 75% by this point.

[IDBillzFan]

Oh but there is, at least one that is getting serious considerations as a basis to start from:

 

The Baucus Senate Bill is out

 

and

 

Click here!

So Obama has endorsed the Baucus bill?

[VABills]

It's not even worth the explanation.

really? I think it is. explain how 3 million insured people die every year.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

So Obama has endorsed the Baucus bill?

 

My understanding is that it has become a starting point for legislation at least that is what the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN were saying this morning. Take that for what it is worth. Endorsement, no, the funding mechanism is still an issue and the public option is not in there, but Sen. Snow, Lieberman and McKaskill apparently reacted to it by stating they thought something could be worked out. If that is the case then the votes are there in the Senate and it will then depend on how hard house Dems want the public option?

 

Snow Reaction

[Kelly the Dog]

really? I think it is. explain how 3 million insured people die every year.

The study and the thread says that these 45,000 deaths are linked to NOT having insurance, implying that THOSE people, if they DID have insurance, would not have died the way they did because they would have been treated, and the treatment would likely have prevented that death. It doesn't say that insurance stops all people from dying. God, are you stupid. Those 45,000 are among the 3,000,000 figure you say.

[IDBillzFan]

My understanding is that it has become a starting point for legislation at least that is what the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN were saying this morning. Take that for what it is worth. Endorsement, no, the funding mechanism is still an issue and the public option is not in there, but Sen. Snow, Lieberman and one other apparently reacted to it by stating they thought something could be worked out. If that is the case then the votes are there in the Senate and it will then depend on how hard house Dems want the public option?

You'd think there'd be a final bill in place before people start implying that these people died because the bill that doesn't exist hasn't been passed. Plus, let's say the final bill DOES make insurance coverage mandatory (or you face being fined). Let's say after all this, there are still 25,000 uninsured people who die each year. Will those deaths be deemed less traumatic if we simply explain "Well, we made it mandatory, and they opted not to get coverage, so what do you want from us?"

 

It's a ridiculous stat and tactic that doesn't advance the discussion but rather takes people off topic...again.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The study and the thread says that these 45,000 deaths are linked to NOT having insurance, implying that THOSE people, if they DID have insurance, would not have died the way they did because they would have been treated, and the treatment would likely have prevented that death. It doesn't say that insurance stops all people from dying. God, are you stupid. Those 45,000 are among the 3,000,000 figure you say.

 

You gotta explain it like he is a six year old... sorry next time be clearer and use ssiimmppllee language

[Kelly the Dog]

So Obama has endorsed the Baucus bill?

The large majority of the basics of all of the five bills being considered and about to be condensed into two, and soon one, are the same, and have been the same since January. Obama has laid out several elements they must have for him to sign it and they all have them. That's about 80% of the bills. The only major differences are HOW it is going to be paid for, and whether or not there will be a public option versus a co-op option.

 

There are 100 other minor elements to the various plans and which vary from plan to plan, like how many of the uninsured will it cover, will there be mandates on individuals and businesses, who exactly gets subsidized by the government, etc, along with dozens of other pilot programs to try to make care better and more efficient in the future. These are all important, but don't really matter right now in the main conversation.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You'd think there'd be a final bill in place before people start implying that these people died because the bill that doesn't exist hasn't been passed. Plus, let's say the final bill DOES make insurance coverage mandatory (or you face being fined). Let's say after all this, there are still 25,000 uninsured people who die each year. Will those deaths be deemed less traumatic if we simply explain "Well, we made it mandatory, and they opted not to get coverage, so what do you want from us?"

 

It's a ridiculous stat and tactic that doesn't advance the discussion but rather takes people off topic...again.

 

 

Nice twisting they said that they died because they did not have insurance and could have been saved if they did. You are right though that they could still opt out to their own detriment... kinda like the homeless in DC who won't go inside or take their meds unless it is below freezing, but more will be saved and then it becomes a question down to the last few of the law of diminishing returns and availability. At that point the insurance and care is available, just not taken advantage of. Morally, and humanly a much better place for our society to be IMO.

[IDBillzFan]

Nice twisting they said that they died because they did not have insurance and could have been saved if they did.

Okay. When a report is released stating that 45,000 uninsured people die every year, precisely what other message do you infer from that except that universal health insurance would have saved them? Especially when the report is released by a group whose primary goal is to get a single-payer program in place?

 

You are right though that they could still opt out to their own detriment... kinda like the homeless in DC who won't go inside or take their meds unless it is below freezing, but more will be saved and then it becomes a question down to the last few of the law of diminishing returns and availability. At that point the insurance and care is available, just not taken advantage of. Morally, and humanly a much better place for our society to be IMO.

Which goes back to my point: this is a ridiculous stat that detracts from the discussion.

[/dev/null]

That's 45,000 less people we have to worry about finding insurance for

[DC Tom]

But lets do nothing

 

That's retarded. Lack of insurance doesn't kill people. Lack of care does.

 

And no, they are not the same thing.

[VABills]

That's retarded. Lack of insurance doesn't kill people. Lack of care does.

 

And no, they are not the same thing.

Thank you Tom.