tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22563831.post4915597216182383680..comments2024-02-15T15:25:04.287-08:00Comments on Losing the War on Humor: Harvard Study: 45,000 U.S. Deaths Annually Linked to Insurance Industry2Truthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06621258620190540140noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22563831.post-33929350952257954632010-01-06T15:18:14.634-08:002010-01-06T15:18:14.634-08:00"If I had no insurance in 1988 on the day I p..."If I had no insurance in 1988 on the day I participated in the study, and then had insurance from the next day through November, 2000, when I died, this pathetic "study" would list me as having died because I had no health insurance."<br /><br />Good point, Anon. <br /><br />Now, let's talk about statistics.<br /><br />This study, however, is no more a "total canard" than the endless streams of corporate welfare/think tank sponsored studies that promote the myth of a skilled labor shortage. Let me ask you this: Does it take a Harvard think tank to convince you that millions of educated Americans with degrees and advanced degrees from our finest universities who are now on unemployment lines and have NO HEALTH CARE because they don't exist and are not "skilled"? <br /><br />Back to the Harvard Study:<br /><br />http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage<br /><br /><br />"The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase)."<br /><br />OK. People die, with and without health insurance. But how do you debunk the notion that preventative medicine can help avoid people from say, keeling over from strokes caused by such diseases as silent killers like high blood pressure and unscreened cancer, for example? <br /><br />The conclusion of this study is that 40% of people without ACCESS - ACCESS to health care face higher death rates than those with regular access. When it comes to an individual's health care (NOT health insurance), I find it difficult to discount studies by physicians who credibly acknowledge flaws in such studies. <br /><br />Per your comment regarding PNHP's "leftist spin" would you happen to have a "right" one? <br /><br />I would point you to this study<br /><br />http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html<br /><br />by Stan Dorn at the Urban Institute.2Truthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06621258620190540140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22563831.post-16427323954400511922010-01-06T06:14:19.511-08:002010-01-06T06:14:19.511-08:00This 45,000 figure is a total canard.
First a lit...This 45,000 figure is a total canard.<br /><br />First a little background on two of the co-authors. Himmelstein and Woolhander are advocates of single-payer, government-run health care. They co-founded a physician group, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), which touts itself as ‘the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program. The entire study was written with a leftist spin to it.<br /><br />The "study" is based on a health survey between 1988-1994 where a sample of 9,000 people were asked if they were insured and then asked to rate their health. The CDC tracked the deaths of the people in this group through the year 2000. The doctors named above then "played in the numbers" and attributed deaths from the group (at that static point in time) to the lack of health insurance.<br /><br /> The following was noted: <br /><br />"Our study has several limitations," the authors concede. "The survey data they used assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of e gaining or losing coverage after the interview."<br /><br />They also stated that "earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7% and 11% of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample."<br /><br />If I had no insurance in 1988 on the day I participated in the study, and then had insurance from the next day through November, 2000, when I died, this pathetic "study" would list me as having died because I had no health insurance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com