Does health insurance save lives?

[ChrisFromChicago]

Originally Posted by shihku7

Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited

According to this August 2009 link, some studies suggest that 18,000 - 22,000 Americans die a year because of lack of health insurance. But the author of the article also says the methodology of those studies is poor and that, really, health insurance doesn't have a large effect in saving people's lives.

Health insurance and mortality in US adults. - PubMed - NCBI
But this December 2009 link says that uninsured people are more likely to die, and pegs the number of yearly dead at 45,000.

So what do you think? Does health insurance save lives? And if so, does it matter?

I think saving lives is a unlikely, we can't even show evidence that preventative care saves lives. The real issue is shared cost. . .a pool everyone drinks from eventually and some people not putting their fair share in.

[GER308]

The woman who became my second wife and then unexpectedly died 8 weeks later would certainly bealive if she has some health care insurance.

She was self employed and had a huge set back and could not afford health insurance. She still did not qualify for Medicare. She had an issue and should have gone to the doctors but she was afraid getting into debt and it did not seemlike an emergency and now she is gone.

We were making arraignments for her to move here but it never happened and I ended up flying home and making the decision to take her off life support. She really did not need to die, she was 43 and really quite healthy otherwise.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by Chava61

I agree. The real question should be do preventative measures like costly tests on seemingly healthy people paid for by health insurance save lives?!

And many of these questions are still be asked. Some things like BP and cholesterol are cheap and easy and do make a long term difference. Colonoscopies and mammograms, more expensive and not so obvious.

I'm convinced routine colonoscopy saved my life. And as a doc I have used this personal data to help leverage my non-compliant patients. With the rare eureka! But not at any cheap expense.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by shihku7

But seriously, your point about driving mileage brings up an interesting point.. maybe health insurers should all verify mileage driven every year and change premium prices based on that too.

This CDC link says:

Costs & Prevention Policies | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

$80 billion out of $2.7 trillion in yearly health care costs isn't a huge number but it sure doesn't help

Thank you for having the courage to research on your own.

Don't forget that $80 Billion is the initial cost in the ER -- it does not include the cost of follow-up care or treatment.

Sure, the $80 Billion is not a lot. Even if we would include the cost of follow-up care/treatment, the cost is still not that great.

The point is that there is this really bizarre belief that every State should be spending the same amount on healthcare, when in fact that is totally illogical.

Healthcare in the US should cost more, if for no other reason than Life-Style differences.

But...how much more?

You have a monopoly in medical care resulting in price-fixing, price-gouging and over-charging. Unless and until you eliminate that monopoly through Free Market reforms, you will always unnecessarily spend more than every other State.

Because the cost of medical care dictates the cost of "health insurance," lowering the prices of medical care through Free Market reforms will drive down the price the "health insurance" so that healthcare costs even less.

Free Market reforms in "health insurance" will also drive down the cost of "health insurance" and now your cost of healthcare would be more in line with Reality instead of Monopoly.

Originally Posted by chucksnee

And here you have the problem....


Health insurance is not health care....

Good point.

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

The study tracked a group between 1986-2002. Most of medications used to treat Cancer right now we're not available during the timeframe of this study.

Another good point.

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

11/12 of those treatments cost more than $ 100,000 a year right now. How many uninsured can afford these treatments while paying out of pocket?

Wrong question.

Why aren't you using the most cost-effective treatment?

That's reflected here...

"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending."

Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, page 33.

Americans always demand the most-expensive, latest, newest, most recent....blah, blah, blah, blah.

Why spend $100,000 when an older inexpensive treatment is just as effective?

The reason I mention that, is because that is how Euro-States operate.

Euro-States employ a very rigorous approval process for new pharmaceuticals and new treatments. They apply a Cost-Benefit Analysis. "New" does not equal "Better." If there is no substantial benefit, they will not approve it for their healthcare system.

Note that 10% of Swedes now carry private insurance to avoid wait-times, and also to have access to treatments that are not approved by the Swedish NHS.

Snacking....

Mircea

[Taajsgpm]

Not sure if health insurance saves lives but not having it sure doesnt help