Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And plenty without ins die. Not as a result of not having ins but for the same reasons the insured die.
True, they die of other causes. But the statement made in the first post of this thread was that 26,000 die solely because they did not have insurance.
Quote:
The lack of medical insurance has had grave consequences for individuals and the nation. In 2010 alone, 26,100 people died because they had no health insurance — that amounts to 502 preventable deaths a week.
That was THE reason they died. Sure, they got sick or were in some sort of accident but had they been able to afford some sort of coverage/treatment, they would not have died.
Actually that number is much higher than I thought it would be. It is higher than some types of annual cancer deaths.
It’s possible that at least some of those who cited medical reasons had debt from other causes, a history of not paying their bills or other complicating issues that led to bankruptcy filing – not just health care. Health costs also could have been the final straw after a long, bruising battle with finances.
The study did note that those in the major medical issues group were "16 percent less likely than other debtors to cite trouble managing money as a cause of their bankruptcy." But in the end, the study relies mainly on people being honest. Since these results are self-reported, people could blame money troubles on their medical bills without justification.
There has been some criticism of the study, along with reports that have echoed, and others that have contradicted, the Harvard findings. Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego, took issue with the relatively low level of out-of-pocket costs that could qualify as a cause of a "major medical bankruptcy." In February 2005, she wrote for the National Review:
"Heriot: Buried in the study is the fact that only 27 percent of the surveyed debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. … Nobody likes to pay $1,000 in medical expenses even when they get two years to do it in, but for most Americans (particularly those with enough at stake to seek the protection of bankruptcy) it is not catastrophic." FactCheck.org : Health Care Bill Bankruptcies
True, they die of other causes. But the statement made in the first post of this thread was that 26,000 die solely because they did not have insurance.
That was THE reason they died. Sure, they got sick or were in some sort of accident but had they been able to afford some sort of coverage/treatment, they would not have died.
Actually that number is much higher than I thought it would be. It is higher than some types of annual cancer deaths.
Just because he posted dosnt mean it is true. They didnt die because they didnt have insurance.
My mother got cancer , had ins and died.
My neice got cancer , didnt have ins and died.
What did they have in common?
Both got cancer
Both got health care
Both died.
Just because he posted dosnt mean it is true. They didnt die because they didnt have insurance.
My mother got cancer , had ins and died.
My neice got cancer , didnt have ins and died.
What did they have in common?
Both got cancer
Both got health care
Both died.
I never said it was TRUE. That is a different matter/different thread. If we are going to address the OP in this thread and take it as fact (if you can disprove the fact that is another matter) then we need to address that fact specfically.
If 26,000 people were died due to access to health care because of lack of coverage, that is an appalling number.
Your comparison above makes no sense.
If 26,100 people died due to lack of insurance, that does mean EVERYONE died (like your niece) but in fact a good number of people did die for that very reason. If you believe that statement is not true (and it could be rhetoric for sure) then fine but you can't say that it isn't true either. So can we just discuss the point that 26,100 people died due to lack of healthcare?
Just because he posted dosnt mean it is true. They didnt die because they didnt have insurance.
My mother got cancer , had ins and died.
My neice got cancer , didnt have ins and died.
What did they have in common?
Both got cancer
Both got health care
Both died.
The other thing they had in common is the fact that their cancer were incurable.
Many types of cancer are curabele if detected early, but people without insurance are seven times less likely to go for preventive screenings, and end up dying of diseases which would have been curable.
The other thing they had in common is the fact that their cancer were incurable.
Many types of cancer are curabele if detected early, but people without insurance are seven times less likely to go for preventive screenings, and end up dying of diseases which would have been curable.
Then that is their own fault. If they choose not not to go to a dr for fear of paying a few hundred bucks, who,s fault is that?
The lack of medical coverage in America is a serious problem as approximately 50 million people were uninsured all through 2010. But the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was passed in 2010, was constitutional. The legislation, once implemented in its entirety, is expected to cover 30 million Americans currently lacking coverage.
The lack of medical insurance has had grave consequences for individuals and the nation. In 2010 alone, 26,100 people died because they had no health insurance — that amounts to 502 preventable deaths a week[/quote I am wondering why so many people had to die because of no health insurance, don't understand? Did they die because they thought they couldn't find a hospital to care for them without insurance? Did they think that all doctors would turn them away without insurance? I don't get it?? I have a friend who just recently had a serious illness that has required surgery and our local hospital took her without insurance. They gave her the surgery and are now working out payments monthly with her on the bill. She probably will not get quite all of it paid off by the time she gets old and feeble and has to have rest home care, but at least they are working with her. I am, therefore asking is part of this issue a problem with people not understanding how the medical system works and what is available without having any insurance?? Hell, even car dealers offer no money down for a new vehicle why can't hospitals take patients without insurance and why didn't the medical system take those 26,000 people with "no money down"??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
