45,000 americans die every year due to lack of health insurance

[pirana 0]

Quote

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.

Exactly. Do not get tricked into confusing correlation with causation. I'd bet there is also positive corelations between unisured and many other things, as well as dieing from certain causes and many other things.

There is also context and scale to consider. I believe that is also roughly the number of annual traffic fatalities.

I'm not saying it isn't worthy of discussion, just that it won't convince everybody (and alone should not convince anybody) that we should jump to a trillion dollar deficit in what could be a vain attempt to change things.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

and now the choice is a national health service so 45,000 lives can be saved...

If only that were actually a choice......not the government forcing everyone to pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On top of the fact that the government doesn't have the right under the constitution to do such a thing!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
This will give you an idea of what national health care really is.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

On top of the fact that the government doesn't have the right under the constitution to do such a thing!

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

It seems pretty clear that Congress is within their Constitutional authority to establish universal healthcare should they decide to do so.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ion01 2]

thats general welfare not healthcare!! Read federalist 41. Here is a kind of summary.

According to James Madison, "the most important and fundamental question" he ever addressed was the meaning of and relation between the general welfare clause and the enumeration of particular powers. This question is the most "fundamental" because the answer determines the very "idea" or "nature" of the U.S. Constitution. Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. The thesis of this essay, however, is that, contrary to the commentators' claims, Madison argued that the clause was a substantive grant of power for the generally stated end and that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase "general welfare." Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends.

The term welfare it self comes from the middle english word wel faren or to fare well....or a more commonly well-being. The original idea is that the government provides for this through protecting your freedoms to obtain such things. One word even used today in the definition of welfare is happiness. Well, it makes over half the country very unhappy to have public healthcare! So that means that are not living up to that if you want to take it that way. It is simply saying the are to look after our well-being by protecting, through such things as the military, our freedoms!
Also, notice the use of the term general....meaning not everyone gets this "welfare" or well-being or even health if you want to got their. They "promote" it, as used in the preamble, by protecting our free market and the "general" person has healthcare and everyone can choose to pay for it or not have it! Also, by using the term "general" it prevents the use of it in specific terms such as congress providing for the health of people. Welfare can only be used in a general sense as a result meaning through the methods I have already talked about, such as protecting our freedom and free market!

[Ion01 2]

From federalist 41:
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

What this simply means is if everything congress had the power to do was included in the quote you provided why would the constitution them go on to define each power congress had? The quote you provided is a general statement that is then expounded upon with specifics later......and later we find nothing about providing healthcare or any such thing. We do however find the tenth amendment. Why then if what you quoted tells us all we need to know about the power congress has in this matter is it followed by all of this:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

What you quoted is a small general statement to encompass all of the above..... therefore if it is not defined in the above it does not fall into the generalization or summary which you quoted. It is not a grant to provide healthcare!

[winsor 236]

News flash: the death rate for uninsured is the same as for insured - one to a customer.

Life is fatal. Get over it.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Did you even bother to read the normalization that was done to the data?

Well, I tried to underline it Just goes to show that the people that have already made up their minds are not going to be bothered with comprehending data.

Quote

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.

additional adjustment for race/ethnicity - this means that it trancends race, uninsured people of every color are dying at the adjusted same rate.

income - so much for the "rich people get better healthcare" argument. Remember that JK Rowling and Oprah Winfrey were dirt-poor when they started out as well - did they deserve less healthcare when they were poor?

education - can't blame it on stupid people either.

self- and physician-rated health status - this removes the "pre-existing condition" argument.

body mass index - probably the number one indicator of unhealthy lifestyle. So it doesn't matter how "fit" you are - you are still more likely to die without insurance.

leisure exercise - see above.

smoking - again, see above

and regular alcohol use - once more.

Everyone is welcome to question how they came up with the numbers all they want. But remember that we're talking about 45,000 people every year, about the number of people that fill a professional sports stadium. All because of insurance.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

There is also context and scale to consider. I believe that is also roughly the number of annual traffic fatalities.

That's about right.

When state governments mandated seat belt use, was it an outrage with conservatives? It did save lives, but it also cost money.

What about when speed limits were adopted? It saved fuel and lives. Where were the cries of "socialism"?

How about requiring better safety features from auto manufacturers? They protested, and said it would drive up costs. It did, and car buyers are paying for the increased safety. Does that mean it was wrong?

The government has a good reason to protect the lives of it's people. Just as it has requirements for automobiles, roads and drivers. If it can provide government-option healthcare, and save tens of thousands of lives, then it's doing it's job.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 3,116]

>It is not a grant to provide healthcare!

Correct. It does not say Congress must provide any sort of health care for anyone, just that they have the power to do so if they choose.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

thats general welfare not healthcare!! Read federalist 41. Here is a kind of summary. …

The fact is, it doesn't matter how you or I interpret the Constitution. The only interpretation that matters is the interpretation of the judicial branch. Not even the Federalist Papers trump the SCOTUS' interpretations.

From United States v. Butler:

The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument?

Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

If Congress so chooses to pass legislation to establish and fund via taxation a universal healthcare plan, they are within their Constitutional power to do so, under (at least) the general welfare clause.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

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.

Exactly. Do not get tricked into confusing correlation with causation. I'd bet there is also positive corelations between unisured and many other things, as well as dieing from certain causes and many other things.

There is also context and scale to consider. I believe that is also roughly the number of annual traffic fatalities.

I'm not saying it isn't worthy of discussion, just that it won't convince everybody (and alone should not convince anybody) that we should jump to a trillion dollar deficit in what could be a vain attempt to change things.

Agreed.

I have seen patients WITH health insurance get cervical cancer and patients WITHOUT health insurance get cervical cancer. I have even seen patients in a country WITH NATIONAL HEALTH CARE get cervical cancer. With early detection, you CAN treat and limit the progression... but even WITHOUT insurance, screening is still available at local health departments and Free paps are available in every state. But you still have to go and be seen.

Patrick Swazye got Pancreatic Cancer. Still, even with insurance, even with money....

Correlation does NOT imply causation.

Would it be easier if the government provided health insurance? Of course. Would it increase screening, most likely. But even with that... there WILL be deaths.

Not having insurance did NOT kill those Americans.

What does not having insurance do?
Can decrease routine visits and limit screening.
Can prolong time to presentation for care.
Can decreases patient perception of power/autonomy.

But... it's NOT guaranteed to do any of those.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

But remember that we're talking about 45,000 people every year, about the number of people that fill a professional sports stadium. All because of insurance.

They couldn't compete, so they got eliminated. Too bad some of them managed to breed first, though. The last thing we need is for the genetic material of those unable to compete to be passed on to another generation.

[lawrocket 3]

Damn!

I'm interested in seeing a staistical comparison about the hazard ratio for those on Medicare. Then I can link stats showing an association between being on government paid health care and high death rates.

Think of it this way - who is gonna be uninsured? Will it be the young professional? Or will it be the person on disability? Unrmployed? Employed?



Note - I've got another reading of this. Here goes.
"If lack of insurance is the reason for increased mortality, then that proves that health insurers do their jobs and save lives.

Is your life for $500 per month? How about your kids' lives? If so, get insurance. If not, go without. And if your kids' lives aren't worth it, fuck you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dsandreas 0]

I am hungry tonight. I would like a nice steak but I can not get my employer, nor my various insurance companies, nor my local Publix nor my local restaurant to pay for it. Food is certainly a more basic need than health care...without food I need no health care because I will eventually be dead from starvation. Yet it appears I will have to pay for it myself. What kind of country is this?

Now, in order to have my job so I can afford food and health insurance I need a car to get to work...

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: Care for the rich to ensure they stay that way.

The rich? There are roughly 45 million people uninsured in the US. That leaves about 300 million who are insured. Are you saying that all 300 million of those are rich?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[mpohl 1]

It takes 30 days+ to die from starvation. It takes less than 7 days to die from dehydration. A ruptured appendix will put you under in less than 24 h.

Now what's your point, DOGBREATH?

Quote

I am hungry tonight. I would like a nice steak but I can not get my employer, nor my various insurance companies, nor my local Publix nor my local restaurant to pay for it. Food is certainly a more basic need than health care...without food I need no health care because I will eventually be dead from starvation. Yet it appears I will have to pay for it myself. What kind of country is this?

Now, in order to have my job so I can afford food and health insurance I need a car to get to work...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: Care for the rich to ensure they stay that way.

COMPASSIONATE LIBERALISM: Giving granny an aspirin instead of the angioplasty she needs.

Quote

If enacted as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2010, policy changes recommended by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) -- the government's insurer for the elderly and disabled -- will severely cut current Medicare reimbursements to cardiologists and oncologists for critical care services that are provided to patients in physicians' offices or other out-of-hospital setting, such as chemotherapy to treat cancer, and various cardiac procedures to monitor and treat heart disease, such as nuclear imaging and heart catheterization.

These cuts will force cardiologists and oncologists to limit care to their Medicare patients, withdraw from treating Medicare patients altogether or require their patients to pay more out of pocket to make up the difference in the cost of these services.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A ruptured appendix will put you under in less than 24 h.

Is that your professional opinion, doctor? Maybe you can explain to us just how having insurance would keep that appendix humming happily along.

Then maybe you can explain how that person would be turned away at the emergency room.

Quote

Now what's your point, DOGBREATH?

That your hyperbole sucks?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: Care for the rich to ensure they stay that way.

The rich? There are roughly 45 million people uninsured in the US. That leaves about 300 million who are insured. Are you saying that all 300 million of those are rich?

And about 26% I beleive w/o looking it up, are insured thru MEdicare/Medicaid. What % are insured theru their employer with such horrible insurance that they pay $500 off the top for a family of 4 in premium copay and then deductibles on top of that. And then the HMO death squads decide if they can disallow them when they make a major claim. Only a very small % actually have comprehensive insurance but there are many that want to disallow most fromhaveing complete, comprehensive insurance, they people I call COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES.

Nice fuzzy math tho.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

COMPASSIONATE LIBERALISM: Giving granny an aspirin instead of the angioplasty she needs.

I agree, let's give all Americans the best we can, spare no expense. Glad we're on teh same page.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

COMPASSIONATE LIBERALISM: Giving granny an aspirin instead of the angioplasty she needs.

I agree,

I know you do - after all, come the Glorious Revolution, it'll be even cheaper. Just shoot Granny in the head when she can't work anymore.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

COMPASSIONATE LIBERALISM: Giving granny an aspirin instead of the angioplasty she needs.

I agree,

I know you do - after all, come the Glorious Revolution, it'll be even cheaper. Just shoot Granny in the head when she can't work anymore.

Quote

I agree, let's give all Americans the best we can, spare no expense. Glad we're on teh same page.

You can't reply with any data or support so now you have to quote small parts of my sentences. Sad.

I agree, let's give all Americans the best we can, spare no expense. Glad we're on teh same page.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You can't reply with any data or support so now you have to quote small parts of my sentences. Sad.

Funny, that - you seem to have somehow misplaced the rest of [MY post - I wonder how THAT could have happened?

Maybe you can go re-read the part you snipped about about how the Dems are cutting Medicare/Medicaid payments and reconcile it with:

"I agree, let's give all Americans the best we can, spare no expense. Glad we're on teh same page. "

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Funny, that - you seem to have somehow misplaced the rest of [MY post - I wonder how THAT could have happened?

HUH? Look, I want to make my points and exchange ideas and learn, I don;t know what you're talking about, just make a point.

Quote

Maybe you can go re-read the part you snipped about about how the Dems are cutting Medicare/Medicaid payments and reconcile it with:

Again, enough ridiculous pettiness, please make your point about elderly having their benies cut. If off the top of your head or you heard, don't waste your time. I'd like to learn someting substantive.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

This will give you an idea of what national health care really is.

i know what a national health service is - and thoroughly recommend it for you and your family

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding