Do You Believe 45,000 Die Each Year...

[sman]

...because they have no health insurance? We've heard several on the left state this as yet another reason for the government takeover of our health care system. But where did this figure come from?

There was a study of 9,000 people between the years of 1986-1994 and then followed up through 2000. Supposedly, one of the questions at the beginning of the study was, "Do you have health insurance"?

Then, in 2000, they tracked how many of those 9,000 had died. They did not know whether or not these people had gotten health insurance between the years of 1986-2000. Nor did they concern themselves with the cause of death. They just determined that because they died, it was due to not having health insurance. They then extrapolated these numbers to determine that 45,000 die each year in the United States due to lack of health insurance. Of course, approximately 2.4 million people die each year so I guess it's safe to say that nearly 2.4 million people die each year because they have health insurance.

Also interesting is the fact that the authors of the study are both for a single-payer system. You don't think there could be any bias in this do you?

 

[Jabez]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']It is best not to believe anything any politician says. In fact the opposite of anything they say may be the real truth. These despicable individuals lie so much they do not even know the difference between right and wrong anymore. When choosing who to vote for, disregard anything they say. Make your decision on what they have done in the past rather than what they say. [/FONT]

 

[Frank Stastny]

That is just like saying I can "prove" to you that driving drunk is safer than driving sober.

One out of every three auto accidents is cause by someone who has been drinking. That means that two out of every three accidents are caused by someone who has not been drinking.

Therefore the odds of getting in an accident are substantially less if you are driving drunk than they are if you are driving sober.

Most often they start with the results they want and then look for ways to calculate them.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Right, falling off a roof won't kill you - it's the impact. So did someone die because they didn't have health insurance or were they 200 pounds overweight, diabetic with hypertension and high cholesterol?

 

[radiusbob]

That is just like saying I can "prove" to you that driving drunk is safer than driving sober.

One out of every three auto accidents is cause by someone who has been drinking. That means that two out of every three accidents are caused by someone who has not been drinking.

Therefore the odds of getting in an accident are substantially less if you are driving drunk than they are if you are driving sober.

Most often they start with the results they want and then look for ways to calculate them.

Great Comment...Don't know whether to laugh, cry or put it in my arsenal of conversation starter for they next cocktail mixer.

 

[AaronNeal]

The thing that irks me about all media including the right is the way any stats can be spun.

As far as the deaths because of no insurance, I do believe people who have no insurance are less apt to go to the doctors for regular checkups or seemingly minor illnesses. One of the best ways to reduce medical costs is through preventive medicine, as in, having regular physicals and checkups. People with no insurance aren't about to shell out $100 for a doctor visit they don't seem to need.

 

[Frank Stastny]

Great Comment...Don't know whether to laugh, cry or put it in my arsenal of conversation starter for they next cocktail mixer.

It goes over well at cocktail parties but is great for business if you are a bartender.

 

[Winter_123]

One of the best ways to reduce medical costs is through preventive medicine, as in, having regular physicals and checkups..

Actually many studies have shown that increasing preventive care leads to an increase in total cost of care to society. It may reduce it for the indivudual but it uncovers so many conditions and treatment requires that it leads to more treatment.

Libs may suggest that I am arguing against preventive care. I am not. I am just saying that if you planning health expenses around a cost reduction resulting from preventive care, it is not a valid assumption. You can pick out many specific scenarios where it would lead to a reduction for specific conditions but overall the data does not support. I know this runs against political hype from both the left and the right because "preventive" is a powerful buzzword but the data just is not there.

 

[carroll]

I'm guessing 45,000 people die per month due to overeating, lack of exercise and smoking weather they have insurance or not.