riddler 0 #1 September 18, 2009 This from the Washington School of Medicine, and the Harvard/Cambridge medical alliance. In 1993, uninsured Americans were 25% more likely to die, and today, that figure is 40% more likely to die, than insured Americans. QuoteObjectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data. Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to 64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death. Results. Among all participants, 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5%, 3.7%) died. The hazard ratio for mortality among the uninsured compared with the insured, with adjustment for age and gender only, was 1.80 (95% CI=1.44, 2.26). After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance. Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #2 September 18, 2009 QuoteIn 1993, uninsured Americans were 25% more likely to die, and today, that figure is 40% more likely to die, than insured Americans. Umm...that's you inserting your own extremely subjective figure. Way to go! And since I'd have to pay to read the full transcript we'll just passPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #3 September 18, 2009 QuoteUmm...that's you inserting your own extremely subjective figure. Way to go! You do understand what the hazard ratio of 1.40 means, don't you?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #4 September 18, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_ratio QuoteThe hazard ratio in survival analysis is the effect of an explanatory variable on the hazard or risk of an event.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #5 September 18, 2009 The uninsured were more likely to die is all it says not because or due to lack of health insurance! In fact I will help you a bit with your title. Americans dies every year due to the choices they make or made in their lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #6 September 18, 2009 QuoteThe uninsured were more likely to die is all it says not because or due to lack of health insurance! In fact I will help you a bit with your title. Americans dies every year due to the choices they make or made in their lives. and now the choice is a national health service so 45,000 lives can be saved...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #7 September 18, 2009 QuoteThe uninsured were more likely to die is all it says not because or due to lack of health insurance! So your conclusion is that people who can't afford health insurance also choose to live unhealthy lifestyles?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKE_440 0 #8 September 18, 2009 QuoteSo your conclusion is that people who can't afford health insurance also choose to live unhealthy lifestyles? I am sure the affording part is not the only issue. How many drug dealers and drug addicts don't have insurance? How many gang members don't have insurance? How many young adults don't have insurance yet still drive drunk? The question is not black and white, and neither is the answer. People die in all walks of life, and those who expose themselves to it in incredibly stupid ways (i.e. drugs, gangs, drunk driving, the list can go on) OPT to not have insurance. It isn't always important to everyone, whether they can afford it or not! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #9 September 18, 2009 his conclusion is that the sick and poor should quietly die without disturbing him... (if they could dig their own graves and then shoot themselves even better)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #10 September 18, 2009 Quotehis conclusion is that the sick and poor should quietly die without disturbing him... (if they could dig their own graves and then shoot themselves even better) You seem to be quite willing to make other people's conclusions for them but unwilling to make you own. Why is that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #11 September 18, 2009 Fact: all of us are 100% likely to die! Health insurance doesn't prevent death. The obvious being said, of course rich people live longer than poor people (and health insurance purchase is likely correlated to income, although I have no data... Seems obvious enough). Regardless of if you provided basic health insurance for all, the rich would still go out and buy more expensive treatments and live longer. Then people would still bitch about how unfair the system is. Or they can just accept that life is tough- get a helmet! Anyway, rich people living longer seems perfectly fair to me. Unless you advocate taking away their choice to buy the best available care, it will always be this way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #12 September 18, 2009 QuoteI am sure the affording part is not the only issue. How many drug dealers and drug addicts don't have insurance? How many gang members don't have insurance? How many young adults don't have insurance yet still drive drunk? So, the 40 million Americans that don't have insurance are drug dealers, gang members or drunk drivers? Now I know why you don't want to help insure them - I wouldn't insure that unsavory lot, either. To me it seems like the majority of uninsured deaths are likely due to people's fear of the cost of seeking healthcare. We all know what it takes financially to go to an emergency room, or ride in an ambulance. What we don't know is if we are going to live or die from our ailments. Uninsured Americans have to gamble their lives vs. their financial security every time they get sick.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #13 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuotehis conclusion is that the sick and poor should quietly die without disturbing him... (if they could dig their own graves and then shoot themselves even better) You seem to be quite willing to make other people's conclusions for them but unwilling to make you own. Why is that? my conclusion is that the us needs a national healthcare service...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #14 September 18, 2009 According to your information, 0.1125% of Americans without insurance die every year ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKE_440 0 #15 September 18, 2009 QuoteSo, the 40 million Americans that don't have insurance are drug dealers, gang members or drunk drivers? Again, it is not black and white. Yes, these are three examples I used, and there are many more. Any sane person would have to agree with that... Death comes in many forms some of which are from stupidity, the very same people who OPTED not to get insurance. The point with that is it skews your ratio in the original post. That is the topic at hand, not 40 million people uninsured. Stay on point. i can agree that is not the only reason (because people don't want insurance) but I would imagine the number of people who freely elected to have no insurance and die stupidly would be pretty high. And 40 million without insurance... how many out of that are actually "uninsureable"?? I am sure it is not that high. That number is a little skewed as well. A substantial portion of that could have insurance if they WANTED! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #16 September 18, 2009 if they WANTED - they could live forever - not!stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #17 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe uninsured were more likely to die is all it says not because or due to lack of health insurance! In fact I will help you a bit with your title. Americans dies every year due to the choices they make or made in their lives. and now the choice is a national health service so 45,000 lives can be saved... Reminds me of the argument about the death penalty error rate being 1 or 2%. Conservatives say it's negligible, liberals care about the 1 or 2%. And conservatives run teh rhetoric about liberty and protections via the US Const. COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: Care for the rich to ensure they stay that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 September 18, 2009 QuoteThe obvious being said, of course rich people live longer than poor people Longer and with more qualityl the American way - have money you deserve more. QuoteAnyway, rich people living longer seems perfectly fair to me. Rich people get organ transplants sooner (Mickey Mantle, Alonzo Mourning, etc), gte preferential treatment in all aspects of life, even cort for serious crimes. Yep, not a classist place at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKE_440 0 #19 September 18, 2009 Quoteif they WANTED - they could live forever - not! I don't know what that means? Are you telling me that all 40 million non insured Americans can't afford it? Every single one of theirs salvation is only through a national health care!?! Again, nothing down the middle with you, just left or right, up or down? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #20 September 18, 2009 Quote The obvious being said, of course rich people live longer than poor people Did you even bother to read the normalization that was done to the data? Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #21 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteif they WANTED - they could live forever - not! I don't know what that means? Are you telling me that all 40 million non insured Americans can't afford it? Every single one of theirs salvation is only through a national health care!?! Again, nothing down the middle with you, just left or right, up or down? a national health service would mean no-one was uninsured so all your distinctions between those uninsured who deserve to die and those who do not is irrelevant...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 September 18, 2009 Quotehis conclusion is that the sick and poor should quietly die without disturbing him... (if they could dig their own graves and then shoot themselves even better) DD - your parenthetical may sound very efficient, bit I find it rather distasteful. But if your socialist leanings push you that way, I certainly can see why you'd come to that conclusion. (Digging your own grave is best for the common good as it frees up resources for production and further worker exploitation.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #23 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuotehis conclusion is that the sick and poor should quietly die without disturbing him... (if they could dig their own graves and then shoot themselves even better) You seem to be quite willing to make other people's conclusions for them but unwilling to make you own. Why is that? nonsence, it appears he agrees and offers further efficiencies for the common good... that's a GOOD leftist drone.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKE_440 0 #24 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteif they WANTED - they could live forever - not! I don't know what that means? Are you telling me that all 40 million non insured Americans can't afford it? Every single one of theirs salvation is only through a national health care!?! Again, nothing down the middle with you, just left or right, up or down? a national health service would mean no-one was uninsured so all your distinctions between those uninsured who deserve to die and those who do not is irrelevant... Only if you agree with the National Health Care. It is still a debate, and my whole point to arguing with the OP was to negate part of the link he provided. I do think it is hilarious that you seem to portray what I am saying is these people "deserve to die and those who do not..." Is it YOUR contention that people need to die? No where did I say that, only observations to how any figures, ratios, and percentages can be skewed, and when applied to the National Health Care debate, you think those numbers are going to make me believe. The Bill Of Rights of I believe are ones that only limit the government from intruding into my life, whether it be for the better or worst (again speaking only for me,) not ones that regulate my life, and this includes a National Health Care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #25 September 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe uninsured were more likely to die is all it says not because or due to lack of health insurance! So your conclusion is that people who can't afford health insurance also choose to live unhealthy lifestyles? People without pre-existing conditions who can't afford health insurance also can't afford to live healthy life styles. Low income makes low-priced food attractive, where the lowest costs per calorie are found in "junk food" with low nutritional value. With satiety being a function of food volume, people eating such foods need to eat more calories to feel full and are therefore more likely to be obese. People who can't afford health insurance can't afford to own cars (or park them in urban areas), meaning low-income city dwellers are more likely to be stuck with convenience stores which only stock such foods. This is starting to become common knowledge http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
