Posted on 08/22/2009 7:56:22 PM PDT by Steelfish
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The Uninsured
Published: August 22, 2009
One of the major goals of health care reform is to cover the vast numbers of uninsured. But how vast, really, is that pool of people? Who are they? And how important is it to cover all or most of them?
Critics play down the seriousness of the problem by pointing out that the ranks of the uninsured include many people who have chosen to forgo coverage or are only temporarily uninsured: workers who could afford to pay but decline their employers’ coverage; the self-employed who choose not to pay for more expensive individual coverage; healthy young people who prefer not to buy insurance they may never need; people who are changing jobs; poor people who are eligible for Medicaid but have failed to enroll. And then there are the illegal immigrants, a favorite target of critics.
All that is true, to some degree. But the implication — that lack of insurance is no big deal and surely not worth spending a trillion dollars to fix — is not.
No matter how you slice the numbers, there are tens of millions of people without insurance, often for extended periods, and there is good evidence that lack of insurance is harmful to their health.
Scores of well-designed studies have shown that uninsured people are more likely than insured people to die prematurely, to have their cancers diagnosed too late, or to die from heart failure, a heart attack, a stroke or a severe injury. The Institute of Medicine estimated in 2004 that perhaps 18,000 deaths a year among adults could be attributed to lack of insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
New York Times . . . New York Times . . .
Help me out here; what was the New York Times?
and this horrible bill would cover 10-12 million of them. Intertesting, isn;t that how many illegal aliens we have?? some coincidence?
Ever notice how when the New York Times tells it’s vilest lies, does it’s most reprehensible hatchet jobs, It’s either unattributed, or signed “the Editorial Board’?
18,000 deaths a year among adults because of lack of insurance.
Funny how the NYT doesn’t seem to care about 1,000,000 deaths a year among different demo who also happen to lack insurance, but that’s not the cause of their deaths.
How many adults die every year because of drunk driving, something that wasn’t hurt any by Obama’s beer summit promoting alcohol as a solution to problems. If a GOP President had a beer summit he’d be raked over the coals.
What’s next, is Obama going to invite follks down to DC to smoke Ganja and pass the peace pipe while they groove on Bob Marley?
It seems to me the GOP needs to emphasize reducing the costs for those who already have insurance. Way more people have insurance and are upset at the cost than don’t have it, especially among voters. If the GOP focuses on lowering costs for those who do have insurance and Obama and the dems focus on giving everyone insurance, the GOP will win tha tdebate 100% of the time.
The purpose of health insurance is to protect your wealth.
If you have no wealth?
You probably do not need health insurance.
EVREYONE has health care!
Abortions?
If you figure that 18,000 die a year due to lack of insurance, that makes 180,000 in 10 years. If that trillion dollars is a ten year figure (I have no idea and the article doesn’t say), then basically the Times is advocating spending $5.5 million dollars per life, if I’ve done the math right.
Consider— if someone went to court with a wrongful death lawsuit, would any court award that amount? For most people, I very much doubt it.
A trillion dollars is a LOT of money. People can’t put it in perspective.
The New Yawk Times. Doing the job the Commie ‘RATS don’t want to do.
Another one of those "myths", "rumors" and "phony claims" about why we need ObamaCare.
Why would they care? They sure as hell didn’t care when Stalin was murdering millions and they won Pulitzers for making up stories about how great he was. What’s 18,000 when you have lied about the deaths of Millions?
very good. I just found it funny that the Times has never said one word about the 40,000,000 babies killed since Roe v Wade but is now shedding tears for the 18,000 a year, and note that the article said perhaps 18,000, it could well be much less than that.
Not that they’re not worth it or anything but it’s just an interesting reflection on the prioroties at the Times.
Somehow I think if a deal was presented whereby health care reform is enacted but at the same time Roe is overturned, resulting in a net saving of lives that is far greater than perhaps 18,000 a year, the NYT would be aghast at such a thought
that’s why we need
1) tort reform
2) same tax treatment for individual insurance as for employer based insurance
3) ability to purchase insurance across state lines
4) perhaps a bigger charitable tax credit for those who help pay for insurance for the uninsured
Yes, it would hurt financially to have to pay out $10,000 or $20,000 but it wouldn't leave us bankrupt and penniless.
Essentially, my husband and I are able to pay out of pocket for most illnesses ( a pneumonia, appendectomy, broken arm, gall bladder removal, hip replacement..etc.) What we **really** need insurance for is a very long stay in an ICU after a very unusually illness or horrific accident.
In CA, hospital costs, alone, average $10k per day. Surgery is extra. My broken leg cost $26K, about $1000 per hour of hospitalization, which is also about the average. But the average is not even close to the max.
Bill for a recent “outpatient” Gallbladder surgery was $60K.
Not even a day in the hospital. No complications.
The medical system lacks price transparency. No one knows and few care what things cost. High deductibles do help, the higher, the better. Then people demand to see prices. Even then, stone faced billing clerks often say they don’t know, and insurers won’t tell you.
That was an estimated 18,000 deaths. How many deaths are physician caused (itarogenic)? If the info at the link is correct it’s almost 800,000 a year. Maybe health care isn’t a panacea.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
Is that what the insurance company actually paid out to the hospital and doctors or were they merely inflated charges?
I was checking prices on liposuction this week. For removal of abdominal fat the price was $3,000. Is this less that much less complicated than gallbladder removal?
With higher deductibles and fair pricing ( privately paying patients should not be charged more than those with insurance or Medicaid) the prices would go down.
Personally, I would prefer to pay for a high deductibles insurance for my employees and myself and add something on a monthly basis to a medical savings account. With more people using their own money to pay for large portions of their health costs the prices should come down.
It irritates me no end that we are prohibited by law in my state from buying high deductibles insurance.
You are correct in wanting a Health Savings Account for your employees. They usually pay all preventive care with no deductible OR co-pay. Also, nearly all insurers include very nice wellness programs, that now focus on increasing employee productivity and reducing absentism (where the real savings are for most businesses).
I’m looking into the issue of the charges for that client. It sounds like the cash, non-discounted price, but I’m not sure. I was amazed at the cost, but it likely had been done orthoscopically, and perhaps with the assistance of a new surgical robot.
In any case, the woman, who has small children and had been very sick for weeks, was out on a 20 mile bike ride with her spouse by the next weekend.
There are literally miracles going on in American medicine now. Stats about ROI vs. costs just do not tell the story.
Obama is using examples that were out of date and discredited 20 to 30 years ago (tonsils, etc.). It points out that he has NO IDEA what he’s talking about, and neither do his advisors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.