New Study: 45,000 die in U.S every year from lack of healthcare

[Blalron]

Roughly one person every twelve minutes. More than drunk driving and homicide combined.

Remember 9/11 and how outraged you felt? An equivalent number of our people are dying every 25 days.

In the aftermath of 9/11 we sacrificed over a trillion dollars to the “War On Terror” (Iraq and Afghanistan). We also sacrificed thousands of our own soldiers lives.

If we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people. It’s as simple as that. It’s shameful that it has taken until 2009 before reform has become a possibility (not even a sure thing, just a possibility).

[elucidator]

I just can’t. Will anyone who reads this please just make up thier own 10,000 word rant of sorrow and pain? I’m not up to it, and anything less is trivia.

[curlcoat]

@Blalron

Roughly one person every twelve minutes. More than drunk driving and homicide combined.

Remember 9/11 and how outraged you felt? An equivalent number of our people are dying every 25 days.

OK, lets say that it is actually true that all of these people died only because they didn’t have insurance. What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves? How much more do we need to pay out so the irresponsible can do whatever they want whether they can afford it or not? How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots?

In the aftermath of 9/11 we sacrificed over a trillion dollars to the “War On Terror” (Iraq and Afghanistan). We also sacrificed thousands of our own soldiers lives.

If we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people. It’s as simple as that. It’s shameful that it has taken until 2009 before reform has become a possibility (not even a sure thing, just a possibility).

This is a completely different issue. Tell you what - if you can get them to quit spending the money on wars, I’ll reconsider my opposition to paying to insure everyone in the country.

[C3]

@curlcoat

OK, lets say that it is actually true that all of these people died only because they didn’t have insurance. What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves? How much more do we need to pay out so the irresponsible can do whatever they want whether they can afford it or not? How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots?

Gross.

[Enderw24]

@curlcoat

How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots?

Um…

These words. They say not what you think they say.

[Algher]

I would really like to understand the study. I didn’t have insurance in my early 20s - I did not have a job. At the same time, that is one of the riskiest ages for men, since that is when we do stupid stuff. If I would have died then, I would have been part of a statistic of uninsured and dead - but NOT because of it.

Another bit that I read today (can’t recall where) blames a death from appendicitis. Except that you go to the ER with an appendicitis. An ER will take anyone. That has little to do with insurance.

Then again, I liked what I originally heard about the Massachusetts plan that Romney put together. I have also supported a public option akin to Medicare / Medicaid / Tricare with a sliding scale for buy-in based on income.

[C3]

@Enderw24

Um…

These words. They say not what you think they say.

I think she’s under the impression that most (all?) people without insurance CAN afford it, but just choose to spend their money on yachts & iPods and such. Thus, the lower and middle class people are going to be forced to pony up the money so that all these people who are choosing to die because of lack insurance, even though they’re perfectly able to get insurance, can be saved from their own irresponsibility. Like I said, gross.

[CannyDan]

@curlcoat

OK, lets say that it is actually true that all of these people died only because they didn’t have insurance. What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves? How much more do we need to pay out so the irresponsible can do whatever they want whether they can afford it or not? How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots?

Do you really believe that people without insurance – all people? most people? even some smaller but significant percentage of people? – who are without insurance are simply “irresponsible” spendthrifts, throwing their money away on foolish trifles?

Maroon. Cretin.

*sigh… *

[C3]

@Algher

Another bit that I read today (can’t recall where) blames a death from appendicitis. Except that you go to the ER with an appendicitis. An ER will take anyone. That has little to do with insurance.

The guy with appendicitis was having symptoms for ages. He had a baby on the way and was worried what an ER visit would do to his family financially. He waited and waited until it was finally too late. The baby was born two months after his death. When people do not have insurance, they often forgo care that would identify problems treatable now, but perhaps fatal if not caught.

[Algher]

@C3

The guy with appendicitis was having symptoms for ages. He had a baby on the way and was worried what an ER visit would do to his family financially. He waited and waited until it was finally too late. The baby was born two months after his death. When people do not have insurance, they often forgo care that would identify problems treatable now, but perhaps fatal if not caught.

Huh - I thought Appendicitis hit fast (it did with me - woke up feeling ill, finally saw a doc a littler after 12, was in surgery soon after that).

[curlcoat]

@Enderw24

Um…

These words. They say not what you think they say.

They seem to mean what I intended them to mean.

@C3

I think she’s under the impression that most (all?) people without insurance CAN afford it, but just choose to spend their money on yachts & iPods and such.

Not exactly, but close. People who truly have no money are covered by Medicaid. Then we have people who have money and use some of it to buy insurance. That leaves us with what? That’s right - people who have money but choose to use it to buy other things. For the most part, those other things are children, which they shouldn’t be having if they can’t afford insurance.

Thus, the lower and middle class people are going to be forced to pony up the money so that all these people who are choosing to die because of lack insurance, even though they’re perfectly able to get insurance, can be saved from their own irresponsibility. Like I said, gross.

This is closer. The middle class will have to pony up the money to cover all these people who are choosing to take the chance on their health by not bothering to get insurance. And yes, that is gross, tho I would have used a much more mature turn of phrase.

@CannyDan

Do you really believe that people without insurance – all people? most people? even some smaller but significant percentage of people? – who are without insurance are simply “irresponsible” spendthrifts, throwing their money away on foolish trifles?

Did I say that? Of course not. First, I don’t believe that all people are without insurance because of stupid things they have done, but they can be handled by minor changes in the insurance laws. Second, it depends on what you consider a foolish trifle, but yes I do believe that most of those without insurance are that way because of irresponsible choices they have made.

@C3

The guy with appendicitis was having symptoms for ages. He had a baby on the way and was worried what an ER visit would do to his family financially. He waited and waited until it was finally too late. The baby was born two months after his death. When people do not have insurance, they often forgo care that would identify problems treatable now, but perhaps fatal if not caught.

Perfect example - what the hell was he doing having a baby when he couldn’t afford insurance, or a trip to the ER?

[Carol_the_Impaler]

That report is irrelevant.

Because some poor Canadian crossed into the US for a non-critical procedure once.

[Beadalin]

Can we not turn this into yet another curlcoat show? We already had an umpteen-page trainwreck with exactly this conversation.

[Blalron]

@curlcoat

OK, lets say that it is actually true that all of these people died only because they didn’t have insurance. What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves? How much more do we need to pay out so the irresponsible can do whatever they want whether they can afford it or not? How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots?

It’s funny you should ask that question, because the Congressional Budget Office has quite detailed information on this. I’ll also note that a universal mandate would force everybody who is financially able to do so to pay for insurance, and thus would increase the number of responsible people, not decrease it.

It depends on which version of the healthcare bill gets adopted. But one example is the Senate Finance Committee Bill:

@Congressional Budget Office

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s proposal would result in a net reduction [emphasis mine] in federal budget deficits of $49 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $500 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $774 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $215 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $59 billion in revenues from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $409 billion over the 10 years, and by other tax provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $139 billion over the same period. (The $139 billion figure includes $134 billion in additional revenues estimated by JCT apart from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $5 billion in additional revenues from certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions estimated by CBO.

@curlcoat

This is a completely different issue. Tell you what - if you can get them to quit spending the money on wars, I’ll reconsider my opposition to paying to insure everyone in the country.

This is probably the most reasonable thing I’ve heard out of you.

[elucidator]

Being, totaled up, in all, one.

[aldiboronti]

One thing you learn early in life, never trust statistics, especially if they’re being used to push an agenda. As the old adage has it, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@curlcoat

OK, lets say that it is actually true that all of these people died only because they didn’t have insurance. What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves? How much more do we need to pay out so the irresponsible can do whatever they want whether they can afford it or not? How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots?

You are a dreadful failure as a human being. The pathetically smug level of hubris displayed in your post really does suggest you have absolutely fuck all experience of the world, if you really think the only way bad fortune can befall people is through them being irresponsible.

[torie]

Can we please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please just ignore Curlcoat? She’s popping up in every single thread about poor people. If I see one more of her gross stereotypes or suggestions that us have-nots should just have abortions/don’t deserve our children, I am going to scream.

Seriously, just put her on ignore. You aren’t going to change her mind, or fight ignorance. There’s no point to it but getting people worked up.

[Squink]

Speaking of irresponsibility:
The more religious the state, the higher the rates of teen pregnancy.

If only we became a nation of athiests, everyone would buy health insurance like they should.

[Enderw24]

@C3

I think she’s under the impression that most (all?) people without insurance CAN afford it, but just choose to spend their money on yachts & iPods and such. Thus, the lower and middle class people are going to be forced to pony up the money so that all these people who are choosing to die because of lack insurance, even though they’re perfectly able to get insurance, can be saved from their own irresponsibility. Like I said, gross.

Even then it doesn’t make much sense. I mean, I can parse it two different ways. She’s either referring to the “haves” as those with insurance and the “have nots” as those without insurance and saying that by forcing people to pay for insurance we’re creating a wider gap between the two, which is just completely illogical.
Or she’s saying that the “haves” are those who choose to spend money on frivilous things and the “have nots” do the responsible thing and buy insurance and by forcing those who choose not to buy insurance to buy insurance you’re widening the gap there. Again, that just doesn’t make any sense.
Basically I can’t really find any way to read a sentence that talks about putting people on a level playing field as the action that will widen the gap between groups. They’re just polar opposites in thinking.