Barack Obama

[randolph]

Lack of Health Care Killed 2,266 US Veterans Last Year: Study

WASHINGTON - The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study.

[US soldiers attend a "Veterans Day" ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul. The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study. (AFP/Massoud Hossaini)]US soldiers attend a "Veterans Day" ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul. The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study. (AFP/Massoud Hossaini)
The analysis produced by two Harvard medical researchers estimates that 2,266 US military veterans under the age of 65 died in 2008 because they lacked health coverage and had reduced access to medical care.

That figure is more than 14 times higher than the 155 US troop deaths in Afghanistan in 2008, the study says.

Released as the United States commemorates fallen soldiers on Veterans Day, the study warns that even health care provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VA) leaves many veterans without coverage.

The analysis uses census data to isolate the number of US veterans who lack both private health coverage and care offered by the VA.

"That's a group that's about 1.5 million people," said David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program who co-authored the study.

Himmelstein and co-author Stephanie Woolhandler, also a Harvard medical professor, overlaid that figure with another study examining the mortality rate associated with lack of health insurance.

"The uninsured have about a 40 percent higher risk of dying each year than otherwise comparable insured individuals," Himmelstein told AFP.

"Putting that all together you get an estimate of almost 2,300 -- 2,266 veterans who die each year from lack of health insurance."

Only some US veterans have access to medical care through the VA and coverage is apportioned on the basis of eight "priority groups."

"They range from things like people who were prisoners of war, who have coverage for life, or who have battle injuries and therefore have coverage for their injuries for life," said Himmelstein.

Veterans who fall below an income threshold that is determined on a county-by-county basis can qualify for care, but many veterans are "working poor" and fall just above the bracket.

"The priority eight group, the lowest priority, are veterans above the very poor group who have no other reason to be eligible and that group is essentially shut out of the VA," according to Himmelstein.

The study comes as the US Senate weighs health care reform legislation and whether to offer government health insurance.

Himmelstein warns that congressional proposals could still leave veterans uncovered and favors a national health care program similar to those in Britain and Canada.

[franalexes]

Last time I checked, people die because they are sick.
Not because they are too poor to pay the bill.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Last time I checked, people die because they are sick.
Not because they are too poor to pay the bill.

Why do people have health insurance? Well, when they get sick they go to a doctor, who helps them get well so they don't die.
Makes sense to me.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Why do people have health insurance? Well, when they get sick they go to a doctor, who helps them get well so they don't die.
Makes sense to me.

The ER policy is to treat first, pay later.

[The Conquistador]

Veterans who don't get healthcare through the VA; if the Gov. is so unwilling to give them healthcare after they bravely serve their country, what makes you think that the same Gov. will give it to them through another Gov. instituted program?

Miss Fran is right about what she said.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Veterans who don't get healthcare through the VA; if the Gov. is so unwilling to give them healthcare after they bravely serve their country, what makes you think that the same Gov. will give it to them through another Gov. instituted program?

Miss Fran is right about what she said.

Perhaps you both should reread the report.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Perhaps you both should reread the report.

I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

Let's see what John Stossel says: Sick in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_J...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

[randolph]

[QUOTE=TheAngryPostman;116638]I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

The study was done by doctors at Harvard, that would seem to provide it with considerable credibility.
I find it tragic that there are veterans that have fallen through the cracks and are not getting adequate health care.
Our so called "competitive" private health care system is the most expensive and inefficient in the world.
In Japan health care is paid for by the government. Hospitals, however are all private. A typical room is ten dollars a day and a luxury room is eighty a day. Hospitals here charge you five thousand dollars a day just to sit in the emergency room waiting for help. Until we get profit obsessed companies out of the health care system we will have nothing but endless escalation of health care costs.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Until we get profit obsessed companies out of the health care system we will have nothing but endless escalation of health care costs.

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" — either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.


There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes — or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.


Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.


Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive — but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.


Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance — and fewer people who can afford it.


Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.


If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.


What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.


Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.


Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.


There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.


The high costs of "defensive medicine" — expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients — could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.


If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.


Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110309.php3







Mr. Polar Bear. I am not saying you are wrong or anything, but the majority of Canadians I've met seem to dislike the system you guys have. Same with the majority of British I've met likewise. However, I think that your opinion is insightful and helps give a balanced view to this debate.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The study was done by doctors at Harvard, that would seem to provide it with considerable credibility.
I find it tragic that there are veterans that have fallen through the cracks and are not getting adequate health care.:

I guarantee you that there are more than 1.4 million veterans enrolled in the VA system considering there are 26,549,704* vets in the US and Puerto Rico. Also, your study does not differentiate as to whether or not those that were part of those roughly 2300 vets have had their healthcare voided due to felony convictions or other dishonorable behavior. Beating your spouse, illegal substance possession or any other felony will revoke your privliges faster than you can say,"I just fucked myself in the ass" and get your ass sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas(federal prison).


*http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/page.cfm?pg=1

[ila]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I did read it and still it sounds bogus. Canada's Healthcare system. Sure...

Let's see what John Stossel says: Sick in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_J...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&NR=1

John Stossel was very selective in his series on Canada's health care system. He wanted to prove a point and so he interviewed only people who would support his point of view. He never looked for anyone to provide a different view.

So now it's time to hear from someone who uses Canada's healthcare system. I am able to choose any doctor that I want. It doesn't cost me anything to see a doctor. If there is something that requires a specialist to look at then I will be referred to a specialist; no costs involved there. If I get a life threatening disease everything is paid for. I won't become homeless or destitute because I can't afford to pay my medical bills. I don't have long wait times to get medical tests or procedures. My hospital stays don't cost me anything.

So what do I have to pay for:

Prescription medications - but I have group health insurance to cover those costs
Hospital stays - if I want a private room I pay extra, but again I have group health insurance
Eyes - eye examinations and prescription lenses - group health insurance for that too
Dental - all dental expenses - group dental insurance for that.

Note that should I have a serious disease I will be guaranteed further medical treatment because there is no insurance company to cancel insurance. I won't lose my group health and dental insurance because it is group coverage.

[randolph]

Hey Ila,
Its always good to have someone come into these discussions who has first hand experience. The so called news media pundits are so often misinformed, uninformed, biased or just plain dimwits.
Personally, I have health care from a non-profit HMO (Kaiser Permanente). The care is excellent, I wish everybody had such a good plan. Yes, they saved my life (burst appendicitis).