OK, I lied...
Sep. 17th, 2009 05:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
averygoodun42Because I can't in good conscience not spread this around:
Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
A study published online today estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
Lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done and who now teaches at the University of Washington Medical School, said, "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease - but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."
The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking education, income and many other factors including smoking, drinking and obesity into account. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.
An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths associated with lack of insurance. The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.
Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who don't is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.
*snip*
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives."
She added: "Even the most liberal version of the House bill would have left 17 million uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The whittled down Senate bill will be worse - leaving tens of millions uninsured, and tens of thousands dying because of lack of care. Without the administrative savings only attainable through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer reform - real universal coverage will remain unaffordable. Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives."
Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, remarked, "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate - now one dies every 12 minutes."
Is that a good enough reason for socialized insurance (single payer)?
If not, what the hell is?
Also, some items to think about:
http://www.correntewire.com/hr_3200_vs_anthony_weiners_single_payer_amendment_hr676
That link includes links to HR 676's text, some key financial talking points (ex. Cost paid per capita for health care: United States: $7290; Switzerland: $4417; France: $3601; etc.)
as well as an outdated comparison of HR 676 and HR 3200. Does not include the deBaucle Bill.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6423577
It appears that it would be 3 to 6 times more expensive to taxpayers to enroll the uninsured in private insurance plans, than it would be to extend Medicare to cover them, even if taxpayers paid for this public option.
And once again, as is currently written in HR 3200, the "public option" contributes absolutely $0.00 to any cost estimate. That's because the public option is 100% enrollee-paid for.
It's the Corporate Welfare for the health insurance companies that accounts for the ENTIRE cost of the bill, not the public option.
Kucinich also has proposed an amendment (which passed... to committee? Into HR 3200? I'm stillwading through this shit researching), to HR 3200 which allows States who opt for their own single payer systems (on a state level) to waive ERISA limitations. That means that people with cushy health benefits might get a bit screwed (or feel they're being screwed; tactile dreaming (i.e. brainwashing) could be in action), but how many of those people are there nowadays, anyway? In 1974, that was a legitimate concern for a majority of Americans. But now?
The ten States whose efforts would be immediately affected are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.
I have issues with that amendment because how the hell do the poorer States compete? They can't afford to implement single-payer systems without federal financing. Hell, there are States that can't even afford their share of Medicaid! (Except that Ohio is one of those States... I really do need to research this further. Egads.) However, if a fifth of the country goes over to the single-payer system, then it might not take long for others to follow. Of course, that would require HR 3200 to pass... That's a pretty big sacrifice for the other 4/5 of the country to make, financially. Also, it might get pretty rancorous, having those ten supporting themselves AND the other chunk of the country (and insurance companies).
And that's where my patience/energy levels become depleted, b4ecause it took me two straight hours to write this. Poor Babe.
Now, having read through all that (assuming you did), doesn't (an improved) Medicare for all sound like a better idea? All except plan D which needs to be reworked liek whoa. Drugs don't need to be as expensive (or as proliferate) as they are. Look at Cuba, which is virtually prescription free thanks to our embargo, and their citizens are healthier than US.
Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
A study published online today estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
Lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done and who now teaches at the University of Washington Medical School, said, "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease - but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."
The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking education, income and many other factors including smoking, drinking and obesity into account. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.
An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths associated with lack of insurance. The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.
Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who don't is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.
*snip*
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives."
She added: "Even the most liberal version of the House bill would have left 17 million uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The whittled down Senate bill will be worse - leaving tens of millions uninsured, and tens of thousands dying because of lack of care. Without the administrative savings only attainable through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer reform - real universal coverage will remain unaffordable. Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives."
Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, remarked, "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate - now one dies every 12 minutes."
Is that a good enough reason for socialized insurance (single payer)?
If not, what the hell is?
Also, some items to think about:
http://www.correntewire.com/hr_3200_vs_anthony_weiners_single_payer_amendment_hr676
That link includes links to HR 676's text, some key financial talking points (ex. Cost paid per capita for health care: United States: $7290; Switzerland: $4417; France: $3601; etc.)
as well as an outdated comparison of HR 676 and HR 3200. Does not include the deBaucle Bill.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6423577
It appears that it would be 3 to 6 times more expensive to taxpayers to enroll the uninsured in private insurance plans, than it would be to extend Medicare to cover them, even if taxpayers paid for this public option.
And once again, as is currently written in HR 3200, the "public option" contributes absolutely $0.00 to any cost estimate. That's because the public option is 100% enrollee-paid for.
It's the Corporate Welfare for the health insurance companies that accounts for the ENTIRE cost of the bill, not the public option.
Kucinich also has proposed an amendment (which passed... to committee? Into HR 3200? I'm still
The ten States whose efforts would be immediately affected are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.
I have issues with that amendment because how the hell do the poorer States compete? They can't afford to implement single-payer systems without federal financing. Hell, there are States that can't even afford their share of Medicaid! (Except that Ohio is one of those States... I really do need to research this further. Egads.) However, if a fifth of the country goes over to the single-payer system, then it might not take long for others to follow. Of course, that would require HR 3200 to pass... That's a pretty big sacrifice for the other 4/5 of the country to make, financially. Also, it might get pretty rancorous, having those ten supporting themselves AND the other chunk of the country (and insurance companies).
And that's where my patience/energy levels become depleted, b4ecause it took me two straight hours to write this. Poor Babe.
Now, having read through all that (assuming you did), doesn't (an improved) Medicare for all sound like a better idea? All except plan D which needs to be reworked liek whoa. Drugs don't need to be as expensive (or as proliferate) as they are. Look at Cuba, which is virtually prescription free thanks to our embargo, and their citizens are healthier than US.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-18 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-18 06:27 pm (UTC)However, the abstract is here: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.157685v1
and the article I, erm, reprinted without permission (shhh!) is here: http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage