Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: big L dawg on September 18, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
-
By Madison Park
CNN
(CNN) -- A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.
Paul Hannum's family members say he probably would've gone to the hospital earlier if he had had health insurance.
1 of 2 What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.
Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.
For years, Paul Hannum didn't have health insurance while he worked as a freelance cameraman in southern California.
One Sunday, Hannum complained of a stomachache which alarmed his pregnant fiancée, Sarah Percy. "He wasn't a complainer," she said. "He's the type of guy who, if he got a cold, he'll power through it. I never had known him to complain about anything."
Hannum thought he had a stomach flu or food poisoning from bad chicken. On Monday, his brother saw him looking ashen and urged him to go to the hospital. "He had a little girl on the way," his older brother Curtis Hannum said. "He didn't want the added burden of an ER visit to hang on their finances. He thought 'I'll just wait,' and he got worse and worse.
By the time Hannum got to the hospital and was admitted to surgery, it was too late.
Paul Hannum, 45, died on Thursday, August 3, 2006, from a ruptured appendix. His daughter, Cameron was born two months later.
Other studies have indicated that the uninsured are at greater risk of mortality than the insured. A 2007 study from The American Cancer Society found that uninsured cancer patients are 1.6 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis than those with private insurance. In 2002, the Institute of Medicine estimated that lack of health insurance caused about 18,000 deaths every year.
The latest findings come amid the fierce debate over health care reform in the U.S.
Two authors of the Harvard study, Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler are co-founders of the Physicians for a National Health Program, which supports government-backed "single-payer" health coverage.
The National Center for Policy Analysis, which backs "free-market" health care reform, calls the Harvard research flawed.
"The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," said John C. Goodman, the president of the NCPA in a statement. But Goodman did note there is "a genuine crisis of the uninsured in this country."
The lead author of the Harvard study, Dr. Andrew Wilper said he's confident in his and his colleagues' estimates. "It's consistent with the vast body of literature that has found reasonably similar findings," said Wilper, instructor in internal medicine at the University of Washington. "There's broad agreement in the health literature regarding this point."
Wilper said there is often fear from those, including his own grandmother, who don't feel well but avoid the hospital because it could mean financial catastrophe.
For 10 years, Sue Riek suffered from back pain, but couldn't afford medical care.
When a mid-life divorce left her single and without health insurance, Riek started a home-business selling make-up on eBay to support herself and her two daughters.
Riek, who lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, didn't qualify for Medicaid. And she couldn't afford a $5,000 monthly insurance premium, said her eldest daughter, Kaytee Riek.
"I don't know if she felt trapped, but it was a constant in her life -- struggling outside the health care system to exist," her daughter said.
Riek took comfort in her faith and regularly attended church. Then one Sunday, she didn't show up.
The next day, September 3, 2007, her daughter received the call telling her that her 51-year-old mother died from undiagnosed heart disease -- a condition treatable with lifestyle changes, medication and certain medical procedures.
"I feel incredibly strongly that she would still be alive if she had been able to regularly see a doctor," said her daughter.
It has become lethal to be uninsured, said Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard.
"If you can get good primary care for your high blood pressure, your high cholesterol, diabetes -- those don't have to be lethal conditions," she said. "If you fail to get good ongoing primary care, you may end up with complications and even death."
The ranks of the uninsured have grown, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It says the number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year, up from 45.7 million in 2007. The percentage of the uninsured remained at 15.4 percent.
Young adults are more likely to be uninsured. Elizabeth Machol, 25, told her mother she felt tired. She had just moved into a new apartment in Santa Rosa, California, with her boyfriend and thought the fatigue was from the move and her cat Bert, who would keep her up at night.
Her mother, Marlena Machol told her to go to the doctor's office, but Machol was reluctant. Machol worked at a movie theater and didn't have health insurance. Her parents were still paying her medical bills from a previous condition and she was worried about the cost.
A few days after their phone conversation, Machol collapsed in the bathroom. She never regained consciousness.
One day after her 26th birthday, Machol was declared brain dead.
After signing papers to donate her organs, her parents kissed her face, held her hands and said goodbye to the daughter who had played the violin, organized her own fashion show and taught neighborhood kids how to swim. The coroner's office could not determine the cause of death.
Six years after her death on September 22, 2003, her family wonders if things would've been different had she not feared the cost of going to the hospital.
"Maybe they would've found out what's wrong," her mother said. "I don't know if that would've saved her, but it would've been a chance to. There are people like Elizabeth -- young people who are starting out in life and they don't have options."
-
Watch out for those "human interest stories". Most of the ones that the president used in his "State of Health Care" speech were found to be false. And I can find a bunch of other nightmare stories with socialized medicine.
-
Whats the point here?
People die everyday, and most of them have health insurance
My father worked for Fermi Lab for 35 years, had great health insurance, died 2 years after he retired. When its your time to go you die.
-
Whats the point here?
People die everyday, and most of them have health insurance
Tell me about it. Not exactly breaking news. This is CNN.com's lead story. Sounds like an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
-
Tell me about it. Not exactly breaking news. This is CNN.com's lead story. Sounds like an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Of course it is, go find some story where someone "died before their time".
-
Of course it is, go find some story where someone "died before their time".
This is classic liberal debating on display. When you lose on the facts and substance, make a play on emotions.
Even the premises upon which ObamCare is founded are lies.
-
there deaths were preventable.Who doesn't know someone that has avoided the ER or doctors because of the bills....not all involve death....I posted this a while back about a buddy of mine.
long story short got a friend thats a full time student(no insurance).Walking home from campus a few months ago he got jumped by 4-5 guys.He ended up in the ER jaw wired shut couple cracked ribs broken nose.Cops said they thought it was a completely random beating from a gang.apparently not the first time this has happened recently.Anyways fast forward a few months and my buddies got around 6-7 grand in medical bills from getting jumped.Talk about a bad deal.My question?What would be different if this scenario had played out under nationalized health care?
-
there deaths were preventable.Who doesn't know someone that has avoided the ER or doctors because of the bills....not all involve death....I posted this a while back about a buddy of mine.
Maybe they were maybe they weren't, but Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is a service provided by trained and licensed professionals that have to be paid for serving you. It's a service that someone has to be compensated for. That fully disqualifies it as a "right".
Liberty is a right. Free speech is a right. The right to bear arms is a right.
Healthcare is a paid service. It is not a "right".
-
Maybe they were maybe they weren't, but Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is a service provided by trained and licensed professionals that have to be paid for serving you. It's a service that someone has to be compensated for. That fully disqualifies it as a "right".
Liberty is a right. Free speech is a right. The right to bear arms is a right.
Healthcare is a paid service. It is not a "right".
And that is why there is change coming. The fact it's a right to own a gun but not a right to receive affordable health care is reason enough to realize the constitution is outdated and needs updating.
-
Maybe they were maybe they weren't, but Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is a service provided by trained and licensed professionals that have to be paid for serving you. It's a service that someone has to be compensated for. That fully disqualifies it as a "right".
Liberty is a right. Free speech is a right. The right to bear arms is a right.
Healthcare is a paid service. It is not a "right".
Healthcare is a right in so many countries in the world that this statement sounds antiquated. Very selfish attitude across the board.
Financially, the total costs would go down with a not for profit government program helping to put the Insurance Companies in check by having a cheaper alternative.
-
And that is why there is change coming. The fact it's a right to own a gun but not a right to receive affordable health care is reason enough to realize the constitution is outdated and needs updating.
More brilliance on display.
I feel its a right to a mansion. Can we include that in your update?
The constitution is one of negative rights, not a grab bag of goodies you to claim foryourself from other people.
Instead of watching cartoons all day, why dont you research the constitution a little before posting such rubbish?
-
More brilliance on display.
I feel its a right to a mansion. Can we include that in your update?
The constitution is one of negative rights, not a grab bag of goodies you to claim foryourself from other people.
Instead of watching cartoons all day, why dont you research the constitution a little before posting such rubbish?
Haha sure you do. It's called society the role of the government is to serve the people. The people want healthcare and guess what? They will get it.
-
Healthcare is a right in so many countries in the world that this statement sounds antiquated. Very selfish attitude across the board.
Financially, the total costs would go down with a not for profit government program helping to put the Insurance Companies in check by having a cheaper alternative.
Well, than were do we stop? Should housing be a right? What about food?
Where does this end?
-
And that is why there is change coming. The fact it's a right to own a gun but not a right to receive affordable health care is reason enough to realize the constitution is outdated and needs updating.
Really, well there is a process for Amending the constitution, if they want to make healthcare a right then they better get that process started.
-
Well, than were do we stop? Should housing be a right? What about food?
Where does this end?
I'm sure if a majority of people wish that in the future the government will abide. That is democracy.
Right now it's healthcare and it's something that the people of America deserve to have access to.
-
Really, well there is a process for Amending the constitution, if they want to make health care a right then they better get that process started.
I'm not sure if they will make it a right. That's just what i believe it should be. I do believe change is coming and universal health care once approved won't be revoked.
-
so health care is for the privileged & is not a right...Jeez....!
yea don't let real human beings like my buddy & others that are falling threw the cracks get in the way of your personal political agenda.
-
I'm sure if a majority of people wish that in the future the government will abide. That is democracy.
Right now it's healthcare and it's something that the people of America deserve to have access to.
Your attitude is exactly why democracies never last and always eventually end up in slavery tyranny.
-
so health care is for the privileged & is not a right...Jeez....!
yea don't let real human beings like my buddy & others that are falling threw the cracks get in the way of your personal political agenda.
Your rights as a citizen are defined by the constitution. If you are not happy that we are set up as a representative republic with negative rights as to what the govt cant do, than go to Cuba or somewhere else.
It is not my job to feed you, clothe you, house you, treat you, etc.
-
Healthcare is a right in so many countries in the world that this statement sounds antiquated. Very selfish attitude across the board.
Financially, the total costs would go down with a not for profit government program helping to put the Insurance Companies in check by having a cheaper alternative.
Why is it selfish? It is my responsiblility to takecare of myself and my family not the government.
A not for profit government program will but the insurance companies out of buisness, then what? How many people will have lost their jobs?
-
Well, than were do we stop? Should housing be a right? What about food?
Where does this end?
Obviously in a capitalist society those things can not happen, that doesn't make it right that it does not though.
What I find most interesting is how those who believe that "God will Provide" are the ones so adamant that he not be allowed to.
I'm not getting into that really... My point is that why do we feel that the US shouldn't provide Health as a right... yet other countries (who the people who oppose this right to healthcare claim are inferior) seem to be able to do so?
Is the US the best or not... If it's not, then just say so, so I can get past this and realize that my country may, in fact, suck.
-
so health care is for the privileged & is not a right...Jeez....!
yea don't let real human beings like my buddy & others that are falling threw the cracks get in the way of your personal political agenda.
This has nothing to do with a political agenda, It is what it is, you have to pay for medical care. Things that are rights you don't have to pay a professional to administer. I don't pay a freedom tax, a free speech tax, or a right to bear arms tax. If someone doesn't like how the constitution limits government they are free to go live in a another country, no one is forced to stay in America.
-
Obviously in a capitalist society those things can not happen, that doesn't make it right that it does not though.
What I find most interesting is how those who believe that "God will Provide" are the ones so adamant that he not be allowed to.
I'm not getting into that really... My point is that why do we feel that the US shouldn't provide Health as a right... yet other countries (who the people who oppose this right to healthcare claim are inferior) seem to be able to do so?
Is the US the best or not... If it's not, then just say so, so I can get past this and realize that my country may, in fact, suck.
My opinion of this country is not determined on our health care situation, which the govt is largely to blame for BTW.
What other countries do may work for them, but that does not mean it will work for us. Most of the countries put forth as examples of what is possible have very little in common with us and have tiny populations to deal with.
-
Why is it selfish? It is my responsiblility to takecare of myself and my family not the government.
A not for profit government program will but the insurance companies out of buisness, then what? How many people will have lost their jobs?
First of all, if you believe the 1st statement you made, then I expect that you don't utilize the Highways, Defense, or any other government program that you most likely do.
That statement sounds great when being altruistic, but the fact is that you will not live on a shack and survive in the forest by yourself. As a matter of fact, had the government not created ARPAnet, you wouldn't be using the internet today... So, you typing your statement on an internet forum is quite hypocritical.
To your point about a not for profit government entity putting the insurance companies out of business... Maybe that's true... However, to say that all of these jobs will be lost seems a bit hypocritical. If this new government entity has to do the same type of work that the private insurance company has to do, then they will need people to do that work.
Those people will have jobs.
In fact, the only people who will probably lose their jobs are the fat cat CEOs most likely.
I'm not against a profit, but you can't sit here and tell me that the Insurance Companies couldn't compete. Either they can do it better cheaper or they can't.
That's what competition is all about right?
-
This has nothing to do with a political agenda, It is what it is, you have to pay for medical care. Things that are rights you don't have to pay a professional to administer. I don't pay a freedom tax, a free speech tax, or a right to bear arms tax. If someone doesn't like how the constitution limits government they are free to go live in a another country, no one is forced to stay in America.
You do pay those taxes though... Every time the yearly budget puts money in Defense and you pay your taxes, you pay the free speech tax, the freedom tax, and the right to bear arms.
You also pay taxes for transportation and any other service you use.
-
I'm not sure if they will make it a right. That's just what i believe it should be. I do believe change is coming and universal health care once approved won't be revoked.
No they won't make it a right because what is involved in amending the constituion, it would just be to much work for the politicians. No they would rather usurp the constituton by passing bills into law no matter how unconstitutional they are.
-
You do pay those taxes though... Every time the yearly budget puts money in Defense and you pay your taxes, you pay the free speech tax, the freedom tax, and the right to bear arms.
You also pay taxes for transportation and any other service you use.
Providing for the nation defense is a requirement under the constitution.
-
First of all, if you believe the 1st statement you made, then I expect that you don't utilize the Highways, Defense, or any other government program that you most likely do.
That statement sounds great when being altruistic, but the fact is that you will not live on a shack and survive in the forest by yourself. As a matter of fact, had the government not created ARPAnet, you wouldn't be using the internet today... So, you typing your statement on an internet forum is quite hypocritical.
To your point about a not for profit government entity putting the insurance companies out of business... Maybe that's true... However, to say that all of these jobs will be lost seems a bit hypocritical. If this new government entity has to do the same type of work that the private insurance company has to do, then they will need people to do that work.
Those people will have jobs.
In fact, the only people who will probably lose their jobs are the fat cat CEOs most likely.
I'm not against a profit, but you can't sit here and tell me that the Insurance Companies couldn't compete. Either they can do it better cheaper or they can't.
That's what competition is all about right?
And for all those services I pay taxes for State, Federal .....
How can it be competition when one company has to make a profit and one doesn't?
-
Providing for the nation defense is a requirement under the constitution.
So is the right to "Life" "Liberty" and "The Pursuit of Happiness".
I can't do any of that if I'm sick and have no healthcare to help me get through it.
-
And for all those services I pay taxes for State, Federal .....
How can it be competition when one company has to make a profit and one doesn't?
Then you have to admit that maybe the insurance companies are just a bad business model to be in.
-
You do pay those taxes though... Every time the yearly budget puts money in Defense and you pay your taxes, you pay the free speech tax, the freedom tax, and the right to bear arms.
You also pay taxes for transportation and any other service you use.
It says right in the constitution "To provide for the common defense" don't believe me go look for yourself.
The taxes I pay for transportation, highway etc are administered by the state, see the 10th amendment.
-
Then you have to admit that maybe the insurance companies are just a bad business model to be in.
WTF?
-
So is the right to "Life" "Liberty" and "The Pursuit of Happiness".
I can't do any of that if I'm sick and have no healthcare to help me get through it.
Life - the government isn't going kill you
Liberty - the government isn't going to oppress you
Pursuit of Happiness not the guarantee of happiness
-
It says right in the constitution "To provide for the common defense" don't believe me go look for yourself.
The taxes I pay for transportation, highway etc are administered by the state, see the 10th amendment.
I know what the constitution says about the "common defense". How does that negate what I stated at all?
It doesn't.
They are administered by the state, but you pay to the feds.
Again, not anything WTF?
Did I stutter? Maybe the idea of insurance companies is just outdated. OR maybe they can prove why they're the better option. What's so difficult about that?
-
So is the right to "Life" "Liberty" and "The Pursuit of Happiness".
I can't do any of that if I'm sick and have no healthcare to help me get through it.
Wrong TU!
You want to be guaranteed "life" via a right to health care. However, what about the right to "happiness" as you claim?
What do the taxpayers have to provide you to fulfill that right TU?
-
Wrong TU!
You want to be guaranteed "life" via a right to health care. However, what about the right to "happiness" as you claim?
What do the taxpayers have to provide you to fulfill that right TU?
WRONG.
I said "pursuit" of happiness... They are not the same thing.
Life - the government isn't going kill you
Liberty - the government isn't going to oppress you
Pursuit of Happiness not the guarantee of happiness
Your interpretation. Not everyones.
-
WRONG.
I said "pursuit" of happiness... They are not the same thing.
Your interpretation. Not everyones.
200 years of constitutional law says so.
-
Life - the government isn't going kill you
Liberty - the government isn't going to oppress you
Pursuit of Happiness not the guarantee of happiness
So you aren't down with the death penalty.
-
Healthcare is not a right. With that said, it needs to be overhauled to make it affordable. The first step is to remove the insurance companies from the picture. Then, let free market competition bring down the cost of service. There's no reason we should have to fear going broke over a medical procedure.
-
Healthcare is not a right. With that said, it needs to be overhauled to make it affordable. The first step is to remove the insurance companies from the picture. Then, let free market competition bring down the cost of service. There's no reason we should have to fear going broke over a medical procedure.
100%. If you look at it though, many states enable monopolies whereby smaller companies canty compete with larger ones because of all of the govt mandates on policies that can be written within the states themselves.
This alone has driven the costs to ridiculous levels.
Add med mal insurance on top of that and doctors end up having a huge overhead just to make bills.
-
WRONG.
I said "pursuit" of happiness... They are not the same thing.
Your interpretation. Not everyones.
Really, whats to interpret? Thats always the leftist way, you talk of interpretation like the constitution is some 10 million page document written by martians. It is short concise and means exactly what it says.
-
Healthcare is not a right. With that said, it needs to be overhauled to make it affordable. The first step is to remove the insurance companies from the picture. Then, let free market competition bring down the cost of service. There's no reason we should have to fear going broke over a medical procedure.
I hate to admit it, but I am old enough to remember medical care before the "insurance companies". We actually had a family doctor, I can remember going to get the vaccinations for school and it costing a whopping $25. The government as usual fucked this up and now they pound their fists and scream for reform because the frankenstein monster they created has started destorying the town.
-
So you aren't down with the death penalty.
Don't they teach anything about the constitution in school anymore? If there is dealth penalty it is determined by the state, not the federal government. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
-
They are administered by the state, but you pay to the feds.
Ah I don't think so.
-
Don't they teach anything about the constitution in school anymore? If there is dealth penalty it is determined by the state, not the federal government. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
But isn't that then unconstitutional? It is the taking of life isn't it?
-
But isn't that then unconstitutional? It is the taking of life isn't it?
the constitution outlines the federal govts powers anything not given to the federal govt is left to the state govt's to decide.
-
the constitution outlines the federal govts powers anything not given to the federal govt is left to the state govt's to decide.
KC is a little deficient on his understanding of the constitution.
-
Don't they teach anything about the constitution in school anymore? If there is dealth penalty it is determined by the state, not the federal government. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
The feds have the death penalty too. That's why Timothy McVeigh is dead.
-
Really, whats to interpret? Thats always the leftist way, you talk of interpretation like the constitution is some 10 million page document written by martians. It is short concise and means exactly what it says.
That's not leftist at all. Interpretation of the constitution is one of the primary jobs of the supreme court actually.
How is that "leftist"?
What a silly thing to say.
-
That's not leftist at all. Interpretation of the constitution is one of the primary jobs of the supreme court actually.
How is that "leftist"?
What a silly thing to say.
There is nothing silly about it, the constitution is written in plain english. The only people who want to "interpret" anything are those who want to do something unconstitutional.
-
But isn't that then unconstitutional? It is the taking of life isn't it?
How? Each state has it's own constitution.
Besides what McVeigh did was treason, which is punishable by death.