2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The seven words that turn almost anyone into what could be perceived as a libstain: "I was told there'd be no math..."

We're actually the ones who stay in school, so probably not.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Always nice to see how close Mittens is in touch with the struggles of the middle class...

Romney Says Nobody Dies for Lack of Health Insurance
Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal Obamacare, told the Columbus Dispatch that people without health insurance don't have to worry about dying as a result.

Said Romney: "We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance."

However, Reuters reported earlier this year that more than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance.

Future generations will die because the current generation is spending future generations' money on health care now.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Future generations will die because the current generation is spending future generations' money on health care now.

Sure. That and PBS. And when Romney's elected it will be spent on tax cuts and Naval Ships and Subs.

Either way we're all forked.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

We're actually the ones who stay in school, so probably not.

The area of study is what is in question here.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

However, Reuters reported earlier this year that more than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance.

Anyone can come up with a number of people who die prematurely from just about anything-because of driving too fast, because of exercising too little, because of eating egg-foo-yung. This figure of 26,000 is simply an opinion. It may or may not be true. I have been practicing medicine for 40+ years and I have seen people die prematurely due to a plethora of causes (or at least I think so) but I can honestly add that I have not seen lack of health insurance as a major cause. I am always fascinated by these numbers being thrown around and would love to know how they arrive at them.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Anyone can come up with a number of people who die prematurely from just about anything-because of driving too fast, because of exercising too little, because of eating egg-foo-yung. This figure of 26,000 is simply an opinion. It may or may not be true. I have been practicing medicine for 40+ years and I have seen people die prematurely due to a plethora of causes (or at least I think so) but I can honestly add that I have not seen lack of health insurance as a major cause. I am always fascinated by these numbers being thrown around and would love to know how they arrive at them.

Agreed... who knows how they arrive at the numbers from those studies... altough they are probablly at least a conclusion based on some level of research. Although for the sake of playing devils advocate, being that you are in medicine... you may not be seeing (at least some of) the people who are dying because of lack of health insurance.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Here is the Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSBRE85J15720120620

I can easily see a situation where people either delay care because they don't have insurance until something sends them to the ER or don't get the routine checkups that can spot a problem before it becomes untreatable. To that end 26,000 out of the roughly 50M that don't have insurance doesn't seem like an astronomical number. Yes, the lack of health insurance boogeyman doesn't come over your house and club you like a baby seal if you can't produce an insurance card but deaths that could have been prevented (at the time, of course we all expire at one point or another) but weren't over cost concerns seems like a real issue.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Here is the Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSBRE85J15720120620

I can easily see a situation where people either delay care because they don't have insurance until something sends them to the ER or don't get the routine checkups that can spot a problem before it becomes untreatable. To that end 26,000 out of the roughly 50M that don't have insurance doesn't seem like an astronomical number. Yes, the lack of health insurance boogeyman doesn't come over your house and club you like a baby seal if you can't produce an insurance card but deaths that could have been prevented (at the time, of course we all expire at one point or another) but weren't over cost concerns seems like a real issue.

Agreed... at the same time though, I think that number is more of a not-unreasonable conclusion rather than a hard fact.... and that the lack of health insurance is one factor. (just as there are certinally people who do have health insurance that dont get routine checkups etc etc because they just dont want to deal with going to the doctor).

That being said, i do think everyone in the country should have health insurance.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Here is the Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSBRE85J15720120620

again, without passing judgement on the desirability of national health care, here is the relevant nugget: "The nonprofit group based its findings on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a 2002 Institute of Medicine study that showed the uninsured face a 25 percent higher risk of death than those with coverage."
The question then (as to the validity of the number given) is whether The "25 percent higher risk of death" is a result of not having insurance, or could it be that at-risk populations are more likely to not have insurance. For example, is it more likely that a yuppie engineer with a job and a house and a dressage pony just decides to pass on having health insurance, or is it the schizophrenic meth addict living under an overpass who is more likely to be uninsured? It quickly becomes clear that the lack of insurance isn't the issue, even though those who don't have it die younger. I suppose you could call it a confusion between causation and correlation.
This stuff really aggravates me about the headlines and conventional wisdom that a lot of health and science research generate.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

It's just the law of the jungle thinning the herd. Who are we to play God?

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

It's just the law of the jungle thinning the herd. Who are we to play God?

"We Klingons believe as you do -- the sick should die. Only the strong should live." -- Kras, "Friday's Child", stardate 3497.2

Kras / Ryan 2012

 

[DrDemento]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Agreed... who knows how they arrive at the numbers from those studies... altough they are probablly at least a conclusion based on some level of research. Although for the sake of playing devils advocate, being that you are in medicine... you may not be seeing (at least some of) the people who are dying because of lack of health insurance.

Cannot argue with that at all. But I have seen the whole gamut of patients living in a blue collar community here in NJ. Lots with some form of insurance, lots with Medicare, lots with HMO coverage and a fairly decent number with no coverage. I have volunteered my services at the 5 hospital clinics for my entire time in practice where we treat the uninsured or indigent for free. I do mostly cancer reconstructive cosmetic surgery and many of those that i see are in the severe to very severe category. If someone in this area is not receiving care-then they are not looking for it or no one has directed them to it. But as you say-my experience could be somewhat skewed.

 

[Rover]

again, without passing judgement on the desirability of national health care, here is the relevant nugget: "The nonprofit group based its findings on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a 2002 Institute of Medicine study that showed the uninsured face a 25 percent higher risk of death than those with coverage."
The question then (as to the validity of the number given) is whether The "25 percent higher risk of death" is a result of not having insurance, or could it be that at-risk populations are more likely to not have insurance. For example, is it more likely that a yuppie engineer with a job and a house and a dressage pony just decides to pass on having health insurance, or is it the schizophrenic meth addict living under an overpass who is more likely to be uninsured? It quickly becomes clear that the lack of insurance isn't the issue, even though those who don't have it die younger. I suppose you could call it a confusion between causation and correlation.
This stuff really aggravates me about the headlines and conventional wisdom that a lot of health and science research generate.

No doubt there's something to who has insurance and who doesn't. The meth head living under the bridge most likely doesn't have insurance and will be more likely to croak. However, what this is missing is the real point that people in poverty, not homeless drug abusers but the working poor (under the age of 65) are the ones most likely dying before their time thanks to untreated conditions either not found via routine checkups or due to not getting lingering issues looked at soon enough because of cost concerns. Romney saying zero people die from lack of insurance is the word of a completely out of touch pol who's never had to worry about paying medical bills for himself or his family for his entire life. It would be like me coming out here and saying coal mining isn't a dangerous job even though I have zero experience with that career.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Sure. That and PBS. And when Romney's elected it will be spent on tax cuts and Naval Ships and Subs.

Either way we're all forked.

On that, we agree, though we get there a bit differently.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Always nice to see how close Mittens is in touch with the struggles of the middle class...

Romney Says Nobody Dies for Lack of Health Insurance
Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal Obamacare, told the Columbus Dispatch that people without health insurance don't have to worry about dying as a result.

Said Romney: "We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance."

However, Reuters reported earlier this year that more than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance.

That's odd. I read somewhere that the number is actually 25,682. Why on earth would anyone blindly credit these numbers as being accurate?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

No doubt there's something to who has insurance and who doesn't. The meth head living under the bridge most likely doesn't have insurance and will be more likely to croak. However, what this is missing is the real point that people in poverty, not homeless drug abusers but the working poor (under the age of 65) are the ones most likely dying before their time thanks to untreated conditions either not found via routine checkups or due to not getting lingering issues looked at soon enough because of cost concerns. Romney saying zero people die from lack of insurance is the word of a completely out of touch pol who's never had to worry about paying medical bills for himself or his family for his entire life. It would be like me coming out here and saying coal mining isn't a dangerous job even though I have zero experience with that career.

Right. Coal mining is dangerous. Pee in sombody else's ear.

Try to stay focused. The issue here is the accuracy of that tendentious article, not something Mitt Romney said. How's the air in the bunker?

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The meth head living under the bridge most likely doesn't have insurance and will be more likely to croak.

Leave her alone, she's only dropped a couple pounds!!!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Circa 1830.

I am all for the red states seceding and making themselves a confederation where South Carolina can win the Nullification Crisis. Via con Dios. But as long as they're in the USA, they can't have their Peculiar Institutions. We fought a war over it (and good God the worst mistake we ever made was not telling them don't let the door hit you on the way out).

I'm betting you thought Goldwater's crack about "sawing off California and letting it float away" was shocking.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

And I don't care how many bitter academics they trot out, claiming that you can pay for massive tax cuts (lets say 4T if you'd like) through efficiencies in the tax code is complete BS. We tried that before, and it always leads to massive deficits. Its basically a wimpy way out and absolves politicians from actually doing hard work. What Mittens is saying is that he's not even going to try to identify ways to pay for his upper income tax breaks. For anybody concerned about the debt that ought to be a sobering thought.

Yesterday it was 4.8 trillion. You and Stephanie Cutter really need to get your lies straight.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Leave her alone, she's only dropped a couple pounds!!!

And her kid's a "retard," too right? Putz. Correction: arrogant putz.