yep, that's all the Right has to offer. No matter how clearly broken our system is, they sit around and squeal about how it would be "so much worse" if we fixed the system and broadened coverage.

You guys lost in 2008. Now it's time to fix our broken system.

The release of this report without providing proper analysis and disclosure of the data is both irresponsible and misleading.

There are other factors, such as where the hospital is located, availability of trauma care versus the economic demographics....amazing how an editor would allow this to get published without challenging it worth a hoot. just another politicization of the news...nothing impartial. Amazing, pathetic and sad.

Another great example of a lack of critical thinking skills....glad to see that the school system has once again failed our country.

In other words, "I don't believe it because I don't want to believe it."

I shake my head at the people who can somehow turn the death of Americans into a political issue.

One nugget I found interesting was that the financial health of the treating facility appeared to play a part in the death rate. That is totally unrelated to the insurance status of the patient.

I agree with Ranger, there are too many unexplained variables in this article. It does appear the lead Dr. in the study has an agenda and is pro-reform.

Ranger S,

I agree...The Liberals use any old facts (true or not) that the Liberal media and Harvard will feed them...They will only twist it to meet their purpose anyway!!!!

I don't know the odds of dying at the Ottumwa Iowa hospital but let's put it this way. My grandfather and father both died there. Both had the best possible health insurance.

But, both were NOT Catholic (or a Jew). In fact, my grandfather was a 32nd degree Mason. My dad was an electrician who did great work for a fair cost which pissed off the town scum-bags. He didn't drink in their bars and we seldom went out to eat in one of their puke-pit restaurants. So, health insurance in this flake-hole town is secondary.

"They" are big on what is theirs is theirs and what was mine is also theirs.

I live for the day when they make the mistake of doing it again. We'll see the local fire dept out with the hoses washing down the area.

Clotho
I shake my head at the people who can somehow turn the death of Americans into a political issue.

In other words, "I don't believe it because I don't want to believe it."

Specifically the bolded part...

And what exactly did MSN do with this article.. They created the article to push Obamacare. Nothing more nothing less.

What the article says is true. I saw a homeless person who had just been released from ER. He was sitting there in the street with no where to go. Poor people are treated and released regardless of whether they have a proper enviroment to recover in. This guy was unable to even move about. He should have been in a hospital bed for a few days.

A friend of mine and I witnessed what happened to one homeless girl in a shelter. She had been stabbed. They just patched her up real quick at the ER and turned her out again. She was at the shelter and needed help changing bandages. My friend saw the deep wounds. The environment was unfit to recover in. So do more people die that are poor? Of course. They have to recover in dirty dumps or in the streets.

It was shocking.

For some issues, there are many people who have a belief that isn't going to change.

Many people are for gun rights, or against gun rights, and there is no in-between.

I haven't seen the raw numbers behind this study.

How about seeing the study. If the study is true then there should be a class action lawsuit brought right now against the doctors and hospitals that are giving obviously negligent care. They are supposed to be treating these people. If you use a little logic this means that medicare people must be 25% more likely to die than people with insurance plans that pay more for treatment.

Lets see the data.

People without health insurance are generally far less healthy than those with, because poor people have poor health.  Do you think an average person with health insurance has a better chance of surviving a gunshot wound than a homeless drunk?  This moronic study is meant purely to trick people into thinking how bad we need to let government fix it.  GROW A BRAIN.

How do we know it is Americans dying, it does not state that, it said it didn't know. It came from the disassociated depressed and it says Chicago at the start, heck, why would anyone questions it?

All this article should tell people is get health insurance and you might have a better chance of living through an emergency. But don't sit on your a$$ and wait for me to pay for your insurance. This article might as well have been written by Nancy Pelosi.

Empress - did you offer any assistance to these people you saw in such dire need?

Ranger and others

Look at the study....there were 690,000 patients in over 900 hospitals. That's clearly enough of a sample to get a clear statistical picture and to eliminate the "other factors" that you want to hide behind. Face it, this is just another example how the health care system is broken, or perhaps was never right to begin with. We already have the "death panels". The health care reform bill will eliminate them. When you condemn a study like this you lose your argument.

We need a real debate on health care and this sloppy article is just an opinion piece. The nugget that most missed was the uninsured "may have more trouble communicating with doctors". What this is really saying is illegal aliens that don't speak English are clogging up the system and skewing the results.

A proper academic study controls for age,nutritional profile, previous health care history, other systemic risk factors, ability to follow physician directions, etc.

Hey Obama, if you want to insure illegals, be my guest. Please don't destroy the best health care system in the world to accomplish this dubious goal.

Quick, how many people in Michigan drive to Toronto for Health Care? How many New Yorkers schedule major surgery in Quebec hospitals? The answer is none. We see the results now of rationed, socialized medicine and it ain't pretty.

Stop turning any opponents of Obamacare into beasts. I would like to see improvements in the current system. But to take away physician choice, enact job killing taxes and nationalize the system is just not the answer.

Get a bipartisan group to really study this thing and come back with a workable plan. Leave Pelosi at home. Don't cram something up our rears that the majority of Americans don't want or need.

I don't know about anyone else, but my experiences in hospital emergency rooms (two) has not been good, with very good health insurance! First of all they seem more concerned with obtaining the insurance information than the reason your in there, or how much pain your in. One time I had to wait over an hour to even begin to give them the insurance info because they had many others in there who only spoke spanish, and they only had one person who spoke spanish! After they found out it would be covered under workmans comp, I was treated like the president! The other time I was the only one in the place! And while I was waiting for them to verify my coverage. I was placed on a bed in full view of the nurses desk, and sat there for over an hour watching a doctor hit on the pretty nurse behind the desk. It may be different if your shot or in an accident. But five will get you ten that if your found to not be covered, they'll do the minimum to stabilize you so they can send you somewhere else. And if you do have coverage, you'll get the best they have to offer. It's simple accounting, and hospitals are hurting from all the illegals that use them as their doctors office, give phony names and ID's so they can skip on the bill. Even legal immigrants have to be sponsored by a citizen, meaning that they will be responsible for any legal bills incurred by them. They go home after running up a huge medical bill, and the hospital can not go after the sponsor, because it's illegal to tell a third party about the bill!!! Go to any large sanctuary city emergency room, I'll give you five dollars for every person there who speaks fluent english, if you give me the same for each one that doesn't! There's a hospital in Texas the delivers five or ten thousand babies to illegals a year, think the parents just go back to Mexico after they have a child who's an American citizen?

NO ONE is getting a watered down version under Obamacare. You are certainly mixing up the GOP plan with the Democrats. ONLY Republicans or Republican in Dem Clothing are watering down THE PLANS.

I PRAY that the braindead who are posting here do not have much of a say on our heathcare.

Even though the injuries may be similar, it also depends on the overall health of the patient to start off with.

This article is so full of holes, so incomplete, and so full of propaganda.

It's no surprise as money talks bull sh_t walks, it;s not about the humanity it's all about the used to be mighty dollar, that's why heath care is all about greed and who fights it the most, I don't think I have o point that out right ..........

Odd to draw a parallel between health insurance and mention car wrecks unless the author is trying to emphasize that being irresponsible and not having insurance crosses all boundaries. It's one thing to take your own health into your own hands. It's another thbing entirely to drive around, potentially harming others and not having insurance to cover your third party legal liability.

Except the Taxes will lead to a Heart attack!!!!!!

Snuffy Smith

And uninsured Americans wouldn't suffer the same...??? Stress reduction alone not dealing with insurance companies would be good for all Americans Health.

Snuffy Smith

Ranger S,

I agree...The Liberals use any old facts (true or not) that the Liberal media and Harvard will feed them...They will only twist it to meet their purpose anyway!!!!

Yes Snuffy, we're all aware that you've got everything all figured out. Shame on those dreadful people Harvard. Who do they think they are anyways?

Most car insurance policies do not carry much as far a personal medical costs are concerned for yourself.

Looks like the MSNBC propaganda machine is still chugging away. I surrender! I am going to quit my job, go on obamacare and sit on my lazy azz. Let all you other working fools pay for my government funded vacation. Timmay!

Snuffy Smith: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE 5 TIME BETTER CHANCES OF DYING!!!! Pure speculation. Changes in the health system are going to take place no matter what you and other right wingers say...YOU HAVE NOT PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM. STRICKLY FEAR FACTOR!!!

Hey, I know Snuffy Smith and you sir are no Snuffy Smith!

This article is prejudicial because it does not look at all the facts of the health prior to the accident of those who are uninsured. Uninsured tend to be in the lower socio-economic levels for a reason. Not meaning to be cruel, but lower income people, many studies have shown, tend to be more likely to be overweight, not as likely to work out, not as likely to take care of themselves in many ways that contribute to good health (partly, no doubt, because junk food is cheap and health clubs are expensive--but that is not the only reason it seems).

Did those writing this article also check on the weight and general health of the parties who came in for emergency care--were they diabetic? more of them obese? Were they out of work because they were already very ill with pre-existing conditions? Heart problems? Until the study is balanced for these other factors, it is worthless to just imply that being uninsured is the reason for the apparent disparity.

Ohhhhhhh puke! If you are facing an increased danger of death when you don't have health insurance. GO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE---duh. Or, here's a novel idea, go back to the country from which you came illegally! Surely they want to take better care of you.

However, maybe if you took care of your individual needs (job, housing, healthcare, etc) and stopped waiting for the Government handouts, your life would improve.

Sorry Snuffy,

This has nada to do with OBAMA, as it has been going on for decades.

About 22 years ago, (REB ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME) while I tried to get a lost dog into my home for his owner to come over and get, my hand went through the door's window while slamming the door behind the dog befoer it escaped again.

Although blood was spurting like a fountain from my wrist, the dog landed on the couch. Needless to say a neighbor immediately took me to a local emergency and everyday medical clinic. Yes, blood was still spurting like a waterfall, and the white towel around my wrist was pure red.

The Dr. refused to treat me or the sliced open artery, as my HEALTH INS. was from out of state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fortunately my neighbor and I thought fast, and I reacted by yelling and letting the secretary loudly aware that if I died on the way to another DR., closest 30-40 minutes away, for my parents to sue this one, due to his refusal to treat an emergency only because my full coverage Health Ins. was from another state.

Due to this announcement he did treat my open wound, but he induced excess pain and I believe purposedly left a larger nasty scar then necessary.

To repeat, this lack of treatment assocoiated with lack of or out of state health ins. has been going on for decades, and has nothing to do with Mr. Obama.

Most car insurance policies do not carry much as far a personal medical costs are concerned for yourself.

That may well be true, but let's assume you have $5000 coverage for medical payments for yourself under your auto policy (most will include that at no extra charge). Use that as a deductible, get a healthinsurance plan that only covers hospitalization/major med (no office visits) and all that would cost you is around $80/month and that was for me (an older fart) checking online quotes. If people can't afford that, then maybe they need to consider what's more important: cellphone, internet, daily doses of Starbucks, etc. or health insurance. It's all a matter of personal choices and personal responsibility.

Could it be that uninsured people are also more likely to be derelicts who are involved in crimes and are therefore more likely to die in the ER? People who purchase insurance tend to be responsible, law abiding, job holding people who deserve to live.

This is exactly why NOT to have "Obamacare" and the so-called "public option". Anyone who believes health care will improve with "Obamacare" is under a complete misapprehension. These kind of statistics will only worsen when the government takes over health care, as they have in socialist medical systems all over the world. What this article and study verified was that PRIVATE insurance is the best way to go. Even medicaid (GOVERNMENT-funded health care) participants were forsaken, according the study. Don't blame the hospitals. They have to be PAID to survive and provide their invaluable services, something the government is no good at doing. Who out there would continue to do his/her job but not get paid for six months to a year (or maybe NEVER)??? Use common sense, people! The government cannot run anything productively and at a profit. Why would health care be ANY different?!?!?!

Wonder why they left out this info in the study.

Overall death rate: 4.7

COMMERCIALLY insured : 3.3%

Unisured: 5.7%

The study didn't include the patients' risk factor. Why?

Where does Medicare, Medicaid, Passport etc., fit in this study?

This is research?

Doesn't breakdown the number of gunshot wounds, etc.

Where does Medicare fit in these numbers?

Real data with full demographics would shed light of the sham that it is.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANOTHER PROPAGANDA POS FROM THE AP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All you have to do is read down to the 5th paragraph of this useless piece of $hit Liberal propaganda,,,

The researchers couldn't pin down the reasons behind the differences they found.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

SO, now all the HAAAAVAD University researchers need to do is just print a bunch of bull$hit statistics, slap them into a "study" by the renowned Dr. Atul Gawande, whoever the hell he is, and get the paper published and NOW this is the critical message to add another $1.2+ TRILLION DOLLAR government entitlement program to our failing economy.

AND THE WORSE THING IS, THE IMBICILE LIBERALS BELIEVE IT!!!!

What if I went out and gathered a bunch of meaningless statistics, with NO explanation of how they happened, and published a study with the help of DR. SEUSS that showed there was no discrepency in the care, would this make it legitimate???????? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!! But we are supposed to believe this garbage article as some kind of authority on the subject.

GOOD GOD AMERICA, WTF ARE WE ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO DO????

This is just more and more Liberal BLATHER about WHY they need to take control of the LARGEST private sector industry in our country. Another government social program or entitlement, whichever way you want to describe it, that will invariably FAIL as has EVERY other program in the past. Social Security, FAILED!!!! Medicare/Medicaid, FAILED!!!! Public Education, FAILED!!!! Postal Service, FAILED!!!! The war on poverty, FAILED!!!! The war on drugs, FAILED!!!!

DO I NEED TO GO ON AND ON AND ON??????????????

WAKE UP ALL YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!!

We DO need Health Care to be IMPROVED but not reconstructed to the tune of over 2,000 pages of legal gibberish that NO ONE in Washington will ever read let alone UNDERSTAND. Our great and proud nation is BROKE. We are in debt for the next few decades because of all this ridiculous spending that has produced NOTHING!!!! Record deficit. Record debt. Spiralling unemployment. Growing foreclosures. Consumer confidence at all time lows.

AND OBAMA IS OUT GALLOPING AROUND THE WORLD BEGGING ONCE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES FOR MORE MONEY TO BORROW FOR HIS RIDICULOUS SOCIALIST PROGRAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND YOU ALL SIT HERE AND WRING YOUR HANDS OVER WHETHER YOU CAN AFFORD A CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS CHANGE WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stand up, speak out,

Get back on your short bus...You can't even tie your shoes.

NiteOwlett,

You're the confused one...Go back to bed you're up to early and aren't making any sense!!!!

"Snuffy is a stereotypical hillbilly. He lives in a shack, makes moonshine, is in constant trouble with the sheriff and is very shiftless, occasionally doing a small amount of farm work but primarily working his still and loafing. He also has some proclivity toward stealing chickens, which led to a brief but effective use of his character in a marketing campaign by the Tyson Foods corporation in the early 1980s.

He is very short, wears a broad-brimmed felt hat almost as tall as he is, has a scraggly mustache and wears a pair of tattered, poorly patched overalls. He constantly cheats at poker and checkers. His speech is ungrammatical in the extreme. In fact, almost all of the characters in the strip (except of course for the occasional visiting "flatlander") have been stereotypical hillbillies – sharp-tongued gossipy women such as his wife Loweezy (Louisa); his baby Tater; his nephew Jughaid (Jughead); his neighbors Elviney and Lukey (Lucas Ebenezer);^[1] the sanctimonious (but nonetheless ungrammatical) Parson; Silas, the owner of the General Store; the ostentatiously badged Sheriff Tait and others. Vehicles were rundown jalopies of a seeming 1920s vintage, even in the 1970s and beyond"

Stand up, speak out,

Jughead don't give away Family secrets or we'll have to put you back in the mental hospital...Loweezy said the best part of you ran down yo mama's crack!!!

Very interesting. Like many have pointed out before me, It's lacking in several key details.

In other words, "I don't believe it because I don't want to believe it."

I shake my head at the people who can somehow turn the death of Americans into a political issue.

What do you think this article is? it's politicization aimed at bringing people into this idea of "health care reform" (health INSURANCE reform: big difference)

Geez, there's so many vicious, vile posts. You people make me ashamed to be an American. Quit being so outrageously selfish, and learn to help someone other than your own sad self.

Considering the almost infinite variability of traumatic injury and the high likelihood of increased numbers of "poor" injuries vs "not poor", this is useless - unless you want to; as Clotho puts it:

I shake my head at the people who can somehow turn the death of Americans into a political issue.

"Poor" peoples have - as a general rule - older, less safe vehicles, live in older, less safe housing, and often in less safe neighborhoods - and unable (or unwilling) to afford all the newest "safety gadgets" when working around home.

No - the only use for this type of "reporting" is to; "turn the death of Americans into a political issue."

sillyshrinks,

Get off the drugs...ObamaNation & the Democraps have all to do with it...The Democraps have had control of congress for the best part of the past 60 years and have nothing!!!!!!!!!

I wouldn't be so sure that this has anything to do with President Obama, although that's what the Obama haters would like for everyone to think. Medicaid has been around for a long time. There have been uninsured Americans for a long time as well.

Ferro- You are absolutely correct!

Ferro; no matter how much one would want to believe; "death panels" per se, will not be eliminated by the proposed takeover - simply "redistributed" (like the money" to another venue.

I take it having governmental bureaucracy - that probably confuses badminton with band-aid - is a much more acceptable venue than the insurance group; who has years of health-care-specific data and EXPERIENCE to draw upon?

Sorry - I would rather trust greedy, capitalists - who have something to lose (business) - with experience; than inexperienced functionaries without "a nickel invested".

please, as if we didn't know that already..this is History mortified Sherlock..

I would serious doubt if an ER surgeon has the time to figure out if someone has insurance or not in an emergency and the patient comes in unconscious. Having recently been admitted to the hospital in an emergency situation, no one asked for my insurance card while they attached the defibrillator to my chest.

Why doesn't the article mention that almost all gun shot victims are non-working intercity smoking,drinking,drug using individuals that are already destroying their bodies. Quite frankly, this dead rate and individuals destructive choices help the death rate and taxpayer!

data...

Obviously, you are another of the blind media followers who didn't bother to click over and actually read an original source, like the original study in this case.

Not only does it have nothing to do with any concentration of gunshot wounds among the uninsured, but all those things you mentioned, called comorbidities, are controlled for in both the uninsured and insured groups. (My bet is that you couldn't even understand the last sentence I wrote, so reading and understanding a real piece of science would probablyu be beyond you, anyway.)

There are too many glaring things in the report. First..die of what..? Maybe those who didn't have insurance where living a life style leading to a more tragic death. Second, true numbers and causes of deaths ie....3 people did with insurance from heart attacks 6 died without from drug overdose. Third..would the people who died without insurance, died if they had insurance? Last....if someone comes that is that critcal that they will die in the emergency room....do they first check to see if they're insured or not?

some...

You are lacking a couple of basic skills, as is the poster following you. Neither of you have the basic understanding to realize that ALL media outlets, of any political persuasion, publish or broadcast anything except for one reason - to make money. They really don't care about providing information. They just want audiences, which equal ratings, and which then equal sponsors.

The second skill you lack is the ability to do even basic internet research. The points you raise are all covered quite definitively in the original study. This article, as all mass media is, is written at the "layman's standard", which in this country, means an eighth-grade reading and comprehension level. I realize that a valid and reliable piece of scientific research is quite a bit above that, but to criticize something just because you cannot understand it, is just plain silly.

As an example, why do you think comobidities were so tightly controlled for, and the numerous multiple regressions illuminating the findings were restricted to penetrating or impact injuries? How exactly does a traffic accident have anything to do with drug abuse or an unhealthy lifestyle, even if those factors was not controlled for in the study?

If you can answer these questions, then you can participate in an intelligent discussion. Until then, please leave the dialogue to those who do read and comprehend above the eighth grade ( and no, that is not an insult directed at you, since you are with the vast majority of the American population, unfortunately).

No one seems to take into account that the uninsured also tend to be poor, not physically fit (obese, smokers, etc) and undereducated. All of these factors, especially poor eating habits and smoking, enter into the cause of deaths. Seems that if the democrats are correct all of these things will disappear if they can pass health reform.

If I understand your post correctly, you really are quite cruel.

I think Wilfred is being sarcastic, by pointing out the GOP talking points re: the uninsured.

I don't dispute the loose facts, but I won't be bankrupted to give uninsured the same level of health insurance as I have had and paid for and worked hard for.

Its simple as that.

Obviously, what happens is that when these patients without insurance realize, while still in the hospital, that they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills with no hope of ever repaying the money, they give up and ... well... give up....

Sarcastic or not, Wilfred speaks some truth. A great number of the uninsured are so because they are too lazy, stupid, drugged up, or whatever to go out and work for insurance. One would expect that beecause of their chosen lifestyle, their general physical condition is such that they would suffer more dire effects from illness or injury.

You are an example of everything that is wrong with this nation and the republicans specifically. Its not about who worked harder, made more money or has more status. It is about offering safe and effective health care for all based upon what the nation as a whole can afford. I know you may think that your "hard work" entitles you to better health care, but it doesn't. It may entitle you to a bigger house, a fancier TV, and a more expensive car (probably a Hummer) but in the area of health care, ALL should be entitled to the best care we can guarantee to all of our citizens. No more, and certainly no less.

So the "Have's" live and the "Have not's" die. Do you know what stoop labor is? It's where you stoop down to pick fruits and vegetables in the fields. Hardly any American people will do it. It is to low a labor for them. Migrant workers do it for pennies. If American workers did it for minimum wage, you would have a heart attack at the grocery store. Let them die as long as I get my strawberries. Think they have insurance?

Robert............No, they don't have health insurance.........they have free medical care. What would they have in Mexico, or Guatamala? Nada!

For those that don't get it, my post was indeed sarcastic.

So you all believe that all the American's whom lost their jobs because of the irresponsibilty of the repugs and the Democrat's allowing our industry to leave our shores for cheaper labor, we don't deserve it?

If that be the case i surely hope IF the Democrat's are replace with the SCUM that caused this mess, that they leave the economy in the trash and see if the SCUM can fix it. F**K O**.

A small clarification. For the purposes of emergency room care, "without insurance" means that "proof of insurance" was not immediately available.

Consider: An insured jogger is hit by a car and has no ID. An insured accident victim has their clothing cut off and their wallet is left in the wrecked vehicle. First-time parents are surprised by a premature labor and in their rush to the hospital forget their insurance card.

All of these people have insurance, but upon entry into the emergency room are considered to be uninsured. This gets really scary if the data supports that there are subtle, even unconscious, biases in the treatment of the insured versus the uninsured. This is a case where not having your insurance card handy could result in an increased risk of death.

Part of this is probably result of the increasingly shrill voices who are convincing everyone that emergency rooms are flooded with illegal immigrants. And it could be that you are considered to be guilty of being an illegal immigrant unless you can prove otherwise. Not that easy to prove if you are unconscious. (And research shows that illegal immigrants are among the healthiest people in the country and use very little hospital emergency services for fear of being confronted by the police and deported.)

so⋅ci⋅o⋅path

–noun Psychiatry. a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

my problem with the GOP and conservatives from day one on this is they never considered "reform" worthwhile effort.

just think if these people had put the same energy behind a solution during the past 8 years they have in pulling down obama! CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE!

what is show3s us is that the conservative media is fundamentally negative and not operating int he best interest of our country.

reform is neeed from a fiscal and human perspective.

wilfred # 2, your post is certainly one of the most hateful things I have ever read. It is most certainly infested with evil.

Chris, thanks for a intelligent, thoughtful post. You make a very good point. However, the fact that the uninsured or Medicaid insured are twice as likely to die at the ER is no coincidence. It's just another part of the U.S. holocaust.

GetReal, Wilfred was pointing out in #2 the Republican talking points. I don't believe that is his view. Perhaps you should look at it again.

Carl W, it's interesting reading what you said here. We spend "far more" on health care than any where else but we ration care away from poor people who can't afford it. Do you know what you said there? Are you just a liberal blogger or are you 12 years old or just uneducated? You know what, I can't afford a nice home, car, clothes, food so I sure hope the Senate gets their act together and helps me.

Shameful.

You are right Carl. But why stop there, shouldn't our tax dollars and healthcare be extended to Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Somalia, Nepal, and all countries across the globe? Wouldn't that be even more equitable or would your hipocracy stop at the US border? Why should the US keep this "great" healthcare reform to ourselves. You and all of your liberal, handout seeking bums are all the same. It's not about equity for you, it's about what can I get for free from the government. You are no different fron the drunken bums on the street asking me for a dollar to buy a beer. Why Lie?

Max.  We do spend twice as much per person on health cae than any other developed nation, and yet more people in America die from treatable conditions than in any other developed nation.  It seems like both liberals and conservatives could agree that is a bad thing, and that the system should be changed.  We can argue about what to do about it, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

Poor people could probably afford insurance if our government would make our country a better place for corporations to call home.

Poor people could then have an opportunity to have a JOB and an income AS WELL AS INSURANCE.

Carl W, if you want to buy everyone health insurance, you go right ahead - knock yourself out. IT IS NOT UP TO ME AND THE REST OF THE TAXPAYERS TO PROVIDE IT!

Carl--

Under Obamacare everyone will be equal--equally miserable with equally horrible care. We will all get the care this article impunes the uninsured get now. Savaging our great medical system will only result (as it has in England and Canada) in more premature deaths. Cancer patients in Canada (gov. care) have almost double probablity of dying than similar patients in the US.

Equality for all! Not so fast! Not if it brings the upper level down and does nothing for the poor.

Carl - they used Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the US, as a case study! If they pass this healthcare the elderly will not even have sufficient Medicare/Medicaid insurance to cover Nursing Homes and doctors are not required to take new patients or any insurance coverage they know will not cover the cost of treatment. Doctors are sending out letters now informing their current patients that they are going to begin charging retainer fees and how many of the currently uninsured will be able to pay that upfront to get medical care? So the government can set what a doctor charges for procedures but they have no control over who the doctor will treat and with the Boomer generation probably hitting the retirement lines and the next generation up having sufficient to retire without Social Security anyway what's to stop them from retiring as well? What we will have is a bunch of low income families walking around with insurance coverage and no doctors with opening in the patient list to treat them.

only people who can afford it should live even I know this!!

So ironic. Michelle Obama has been accused of doing the same thing (transferring low income patients to other hospitals).

There are too many variables and unknowns in this study to gleen any factual info.

Oh Cmon... Even the most conservative cannot be so self-centered as to think that a person's socio-economic situation should dictate their right to life or care. This isn't about someone wanting to move into your neighborhood, this is about survival. IF the poor agree to stay away from you, is it ok that they live? GMAB!

Guess what, this is not just about the poor. The study even showed that Medicaid patients have a higher survival rate than the uninsured. Do you even KNOW who the uninsured are? Those who are self-employed, those who are under-employed, paying taxes and getting no 8000.00 tax credit for a new home because they cannot afford one, no Cash for clunkers whether applainces or cars because every dollar they make goes to support a family, but they still pay taxes every time they make a purchase. (I know without the little addendum, some idiot with the idea that the only place taxes are collected for the federal coffers are in April would have chimed in).

Do you even know that those who are lucky enough to survive shoddy profiling health care and actually pay their bills are charged up to 5 times what your insurance company pays for the same treatment?

Get the facts before accusing people of trying to live off the Government teat. Remember the desperately poor qualify for Medicaid and other health care programs. It is those who work for a living that do not!

hear no evil see no evil I always say!

"Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance"

QUESTION:

Does this study consider that the same people who are most likely to go TO the ER for gunshot wounds are ALSO the same people unlikely to buy health insurance in the first place? Somehow insuring gangbangers, burglars and bank robbers so that they can survive their misdeeds is not a high priority for me.

Car crashes too? and Falls? All gangbangers?

Carl, you've got them jumping. The less bang for the buck system in place must be so expensive because of those deadbeats in emergency rooms for broken bones? Maybe their health insurance will have a pre-existing condition glitch next time they go in for some fixin' up. Hey, you paid for it, why isn't it providing treatment?

dewinter, did you actually say this?:

QUESTION:

Does this study consider that the same people who are most likely to go TO the ER for gunshot wounds are ALSO the same people unlikely to buy health insurance in the first place? Somehow insuring gangbangers, burglars and bank robbers so that they can survive their misdeeds is not a high priority for me.

I am always amazed by the shallow thought of people on these boards. Must be very comfy in your fantasy world. This study compared the insured and uninsured under similar traumatic cirsumstances. I am sure all those white collar executives that were insured were not gangbangers, or hey, maybe they were.

RV in GB#1

Poor people could probably afford insurance if our government would make our country a better place for corporations to call home.

That's a joke right?! This is the only country in the world that caters to corporations before the well being of its citizens. You could make an argument that the UK and Ireland are running close in 2nd and 3rd place, but hell at least they have systems in place when the greasy fingered bankers and politicians go wild with the taxpayers' money that citizens aren't thrown out into the streets during freezing winters.

Corporations from all across the world move their headquarters to the USA simply because they don't have to own up to any responsibility to their employees, much less the stockholders or even the states where their headquarters reside.

The filthy rich in this country couldn't exist without legions of poor people. Don't make ridiculous statements that the gov't is to blame that corporations have to abide by menial rules as to the reason there's so many poor people. The reason there's so many poor people is because corporations rinse their hands clean of any responsiblity and even gang up and force the federal gov't to rinse their hands of responsiblity to the citizens.

Only in 3rd world countries does this behavior persist. Name one other country where a corporation has the exact same rights (if not more) than a real human being?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANOTHER PROPAGANDA POS FROM THE AP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All you have to do is read down to the 5th paragraph of this useless piece of $hit Liberal propaganda,,,

The researchers couldn't pin down the reasons behind the differences they found.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

SO, now all the HAAAAVAD University researchers need to do is just print a bunch of bull$hit statistics, slap them into a "study" by the renowned Dr. Atul Gawande, whoever the hell he is, and get the paper published and NOW this is the critical message to add another $1.2+ TRILLION DOLLAR government entitlement program to our failing economy.

AND THE WORSE THING IS, THE IMBICILE LIBERALS BELIEVE IT!!!!

What if I went out and gathered a bunch of meaningless statistics, with NO explanation of how they happened, and published a study with the help of DR. SEUSS that showed there was no discrepency in the care, would this make it legitimate???????? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!! But we are supposed to believe this garbage article as some kind of authority on the subject.

GOOD GOD AMERICA, WTF ARE WE ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO DO????

This is just more and more Liberal BLATHER about WHY they need to take control of the LARGEST private sector industry in our country. Another government social program or entitlement, whichever way you want to describe it, that will invariably FAIL as has EVERY other program in the past. Social Security, FAILED!!!! Medicare/Medicaid, FAILED!!!! Public Education, FAILED!!!! Postal Service, FAILED!!!! The war on poverty, FAILED!!!! The war on drugs, FAILED!!!!

DO I NEED TO GO ON AND ON AND ON??????????????

WAKE UP ALL YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!!

We DO need Health Care to be IMPROVED but not reconstructed to the tune of over 2,000 pages of legal gibberish that NO ONE in Washington will ever read let alone UNDERSTAND. Our great and proud nation is BROKE. We are in debt for the next few decades because of all this ridiculous spending that has produced NOTHING!!!! Record deficit. Record debt. Spiralling unemployment. Growing foreclosures. Consumer confidence at all time lows.

AND OBAMA IS OUT GALLOPING AROUND THE WORLD BEGGING ONCE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES FOR MORE MONEY TO BORROW FOR HIS RIDICULOUS SOCIALIST PROGRAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND YOU ALL SIT HERE AND WRING YOUR HANDS OVER WHETHER YOU CAN AFFORD A CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS CHANGE WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RV in GB#1

Poor people could probably afford insurance if our government would make our country a better place for corporations to call home.

Oh and let's not forget the best place to hide your money from the gov't isn't Switzerland, it's Delaware.

http://www.caymannewsservice.com/business/2009/11/01/cayman-comes-4th-secret-financial-centres-league

A new league table measuring the secrecy of onshore as well as offshore financial centres, has listed the Cayman Islands as number four on its list of 60 jurisdictions. However, Delaware, the US Vice President’s home state, has taken the top spot

USARogue

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANOTHER PROPAGANDA POS FROM THE AP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All you have to do is read down to the 5th paragraph of this useless piece of $hit Liberal propaganda,,,

The researchers couldn't pin down the reasons behind the differences they found.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

SO, now all the HAAAAVAD University researchers need to do is just print a bunch of bull$hit statistics, slap them into a "study" by the renowned Dr. Atul Gawande, whoever the hell he is, and get the paper published and NOW this is the critical message to add another $1.2+ TRILLION DOLLAR government entitlement program to our failing economy.

It is rather ironic that your dubious logic is the same fringe politics practiced by the washington post to invade Iraq using false statements. However, in that case it cost the taxpayer $1 trillion+ and we didn't get anything from it, but more terrorism and a bill our grandchildren won't be able to pay off.

ANOTHER PROPAGANDA POS FROM THE AP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hell yea Rupert Murdoch is the only man I will trust for my news!!! He is rich white and likes us countree folk for some reason yee haw

Microsoft -
The following list of corporations closed headquarters in the U.S.A. and moved to places like Bermuda, The Cayman Islands, UAE, and Barbados just to lower taxes:

1. Haliburton
2. Accenture
3. Foster Wheeler
4. Ingersoll-Rand
5. Tyco
6. Cooper
7. Noble Drilling
8. Global Crossing
9. Seagate
10. Nabors

This list does NOT include the MANY CORPORATIONS that closed MANUFACTURING FACILITIES around our country and moved them to China, Indonesia, Mexico, or many of the other countries that offer lower labor costs, less permitting restrictions, lower restrictions on pollution, to go along with tax savings. This list only includes those that moved HEADQUARTERS to other countries. Now tell me ARE YOU JOKING (especially with unemployment continuing to increase?)

So Ry are you saying that we need to lower labor costs in the US. Well that's why you have so many uninsured. Companies hire for just under full time to prevent having to provide insurance. Which leads to more uninsured. In order for corporations to be more comfortable calling the US home, we would need to abolish the minimum wage, allow practices like those other countries do to include child labor. Allow corporations to fine workers for Corporate foibles and basically enforce a slave class as well as have no environmental protection laws. Do you have any idea of what Shell does in Africa?

Have you ever seen the film 'WalMart - The high cost of low price's'? Before we start trying to compete with those countries maybe we should really take a closer look at what those countries do and the standard of living and what those countries are like that make them so attractive to Corporations.

What we need to do is to rebuild our manufacturing base and allow the US to make something other than money. No matter how attractive those countries are.. this is America and we need to get back to what made America great!

The researchers couldn't pin down the reasons behind the differences they found.

Hmmmm, and the timing of the "study" makes one wonder what the real motives are...

cantakenomore

Exactly!!!!!!!!!

Before jumping into nationalized health care, everyone needs to read the fine print. I am for it, in part. You see my brother did not have health insurance when his heart started to fail due to an infection he did not even know that he had. He was a very well liked business man in his community. He owned two cab companies and during the holidays he would give free rides to people who had too much to drink and it would not be safe for them to drive. All the businesses new this and would call him. Alot of the time, if a bar called him about someone who was too intoxicated, he would dispatch a cab to drive them home even if it was not a holiday. There is no telling how many lives he saved by keeping these drunk drivers off the road, but when he became ill, there was no one to help him. Because he did not have health insurance, the hospital he was at refused to put him on the donor list as needing a new heart. Instead he was sent home, still very ill, with a shoebox full of medications that he had to take everyday and withing two days of being discharged he died, he was only 45 years old. It was not until after he passed that we were told that we could have applied for Medi-Cal for him, which we eventually did to be able to pay the hospital, and doctors bills. Why had we not been told before, and why was he not allowed to be on a donor list just because he did not have insurance? You hear all the time when doctors and hospitals donate thier services in some of these cases. My brother, died needlesly just because he did not have insurance. However, my mother, being British, and having many relatives in England, I also know how the health care system works there. Just because everyone has the free healthcare, they still do not always receive the care that is needed for their condition. You cannot choose your doctor, which means you can get stuck with someone of questionable abilities and knowledge and you are not always approved for testing or surgeries that your doctor thinks you need. It all goes before a comitte and is voted on and the patient has no say in it. So, in theory, it is a good thing, but people need to educate themselves properly and not just take it for what the government tells you it is. The way it is written right now, and it appears you have not read the document in full, or you would know these things. Please take time to educate yourself and not just take the word of someone else, as that is where true ignorance resides and that is what the government counts on.

So... I guess that $10,000 MINIMUM in personal injury protection EVERYONE is supposed to carry on their cars does not really pay up?.... Bull@!$%#... same as these findings.

I have personally had to be placed into a trauma center without having Insurance, The Name of the Hospital was Delray Medical And Trauma Center in Delray Beach, Florida. Not only was I ...AIRLIFTED... by "Trauma Hawk" our Tri-County Trauma helicopter service... I was taken to Delray Trauma, given a Cat scan, EEG, EKG, X-rays and a complete blood work-up. The next day (A Sunday) I was transported via Ambulance with full medical crew and necessities to a place where I could be given a complete MRI ( I had top be transported because of difficulties with the Hospitals MRI equipment)... I was seen by Neurologists, an and Cardiologist.Along with other specialists who were asking about various issues that were problems for me.

The reason I was there is because a drunk driver blew a Red Light on Saturday Afternoon on his way home from a multiple brew lunch and a few pulls of some quality Marijuana and hit my Truck right in the drivers door at an estimated 45 to 50 MPH. The last thing I remember before being woke up on the helicopter by an EMT shoving a tube down my throat so I could breath. Was turning the key in my trucks ignition after filling it with gasoline... everything after that came from witnesses. They said I pulled to the turn out, waited for a large truck who appeared to be the last through a light to clear pulled out and WHACK!!!. The guy had drove AROUND the opposite side of the truck in order to make the light (which according to the witnesses he was not even close to doing) he came around the truck from where I had never seen him and plowed into my truck. She was a 73 GMC Jimmy sitting on 36" Tires and was no small truck... my head made a complete outline of itself on the B-pillar made of steel behind the drivers door, You know... the pillar that goes from the floor to the roof right between your front and back door or just behind your back door. I had a serious concussion, Broken Arm, deeply bruised hip, leg and broken ankle & Foot on the left side. I had internal bleeding and had several blood vessels which were damaged bleeding inside me and blood vessels separated from different locations from G-forces. The absolute worst thing of all was that I could not see a damn thing for 6 days until the swelling subsided in my head. Scary @!$%#, be careful driving folks...

As I said before... I had Car insurance just like everyone should.,.. but NONE... not ONE dime of Health insurance. Reason for this was because I was between major changes in my life.... At NO TIME... and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES was I treated in less then 100% best of care. They (the Hospital and staff was wonderful and knew I had no Insurance and it did not matter to them... what they wanted was me to be comfortable and okay. I had great after care and was taken care of until the whole thing healed.

The total cost for the entire hospitalization and treatment not to mention helicopter ride was just under $50,000 once I sat down with a very kind helpful person who worked with me and the Hospital to get the cost to a place that I could make payments. My auto insurance was very good... I learned as a Kid cheap car insurance is for idiots who do not realize how bad things can get in a car wreck... They paid $35,000. I NOW have about $5,700 left in my payments from over 7 years of making payments... but, unlike many who cause the issues we are now having to face... I did the right thing and took care of my debt. I paid $120,00 per month and a bit more when I could... they did not charge me a penny in interest.

Now... I am very interested in what these guys are talking about. Because I know I am not the only person who has been taken care of who was uninsured... Truth is... By law the Hospitals MUST give you good care. They cannot say no. This whole story is no different then the "Death Panel" stories and is for Knee Jerks looking to push a few opinions around. I am uncertain if I would have received the same care had I been a Government case??? Perhaps they would have half assed it without the MRI and without the EEG and EKG. NO WAY IN HELL I would have had the Trauma Helicopter from Uncle Sam... Obama gets those... not me. I am certain that I would have never had the service and kindness if they were working off a Government checklist and Required action chart... Saw a bunch of those in the Military... The Government LIVES on a set of Scenario charts like...IF A happens... Refer to D, Q and M for action.... If M action is taken and has no result... refer back to A chart for alternative action.... Yeah boy!... that's how I want MY medical treatment to be doled out... Government NEVER changes... that will be their system... has been for years... why change now???

Stop the reverse "sky is falling" stories... seen it before and its a lie... I have been in 15 different Nations while in the Military... NONE EVEN COME CLOSE TO THIS ONE FOR HEALTH CARE AND MOST EVERYTHING ELSE...... Believe the whiner Lib's at your own peril. Believe an American citizen with NOTHING to gain but a clear conscience for telling the truth.

no one can afford health insurance right now.  add a few more people who can't afford it and the system implodes.  then no one gets any health insurance or decent care. 

where in the constitution does it say that i have to subsidize anyone elses entitlements.  the liberals want everyone to be poor so that they can expand their power...they don't care about the people.  how can you say that you care about health care and then kill perfectly healthy babies by drilling into their skulls and sucking their brains out.    Can't fool us.

The modern American is greedy, selfishness and dispassionate. We need a revolution to reshufle the economic deck, to level the playing field and deprive the heartless SOBs of their smuggness. Those that would/will deprive 50 million of their fellow citizens needed solutions to health care does not deserve to be spared the rath to come. If you think health care reform is going to cost you, the storm will make you long for these days.

"The hospitals that treat them also could have fewer resources."

That's probably the main reason, since the uninsured typically live in inner cities that have the busiest emergency rooms and longest wait times. I took my wife to an emergency room in a busy inner city once, and she waited for 3 hours for treatment of what appeared to be a heart attack. Now, we go to a rural hospital that's further away, but she gets seem immediately - and we have insurance.

The thing that no one ever seems to mention is that all of the uninsured are paying for the insured peoples coverage through higher prices that are passed on to the consumer for their goods and services. Even the self employed who pay the most in out of pocket costs for insurance have to pass on those costs to their consumer. Let's just for once admit what we now know to be truth, we live in an extremely selfish and self centered country and we will beget the wrath that awaits such a selfish nation in the not too distant future.

Have any of you conservatives ever understood what you are in essence saying everytime you write a post regarding your opposition to a national healthcare policy that will insure every american in this country. It screams that you are a selfish, uncaring human being for anybody that's not in your inner circle of family and friends. Therefore, since you feel so strongly in your superiority to the less fortunate, why don't you do us all a favor and jump off a bridge, that way we can save the money that would be used to pay for your medicare.

Carl W;

Hopefully the Senate gets their act together and passes reform that broadens coverage

So - you are quite willing to pay, say, half again what you are paying now (or even just 25% more), so that broadened coverage takes effect? Maybe even suffer slightly less coverage yourself to ensure someone else gets coverage?

You are willing to pay this, under threat of punishment (fines and jail) for things you aren't likely to need - for life, whether you want (or need) it or not?

You consider it fair, that 150 million (or more) will be - at the very least - "inconvenienced" by higher direct costs ;and everyone, by indirect costs; to provide this coverage for the 15-40 million that don't have it?

Forty years ago, health insurance was still rather novel - even as a company benefit. Personal health insurance policies were nearly unheard of. You could sue for malpractice; if you proved your case, you won. Ten years before that, if you lost, you paid the court costs.

And a catastrophic illness would STILL ruin you. Today - our addictive dependence on insurance and the resulting higher costs of health care (and insurance) practically eliminates the possibility of simply making arrangements and paying the bill.

craig speakman;

The thing that no one ever seems to mention is that all of the uninsured are paying for the insured peoples coverage through higher prices that are passed on to the consumer

HUH?? The higher cost of goods and services affects the "insured" every bit as much as the uninsured. The insured, however, are also afflicted with higher insurance costs; higher than necessary premiums to accomodate the uninsureds that don't pay-as-they-go.

It screams that you are a selfish, uncaring human being for anybody that's not in your inner circle of family and friends. Therefore, since you feel so strongly in your superiority to the less fortunate, why don't you do us all a favor and jump off a bridge, that way we can save the money that would be used to pay for your medicare

The only screaming I hear is against being forced to pay greater amounts of earnings because "you" and your ilk think "your" way is the best possible and you are willing to use the bullying power of government to force "your" way onto everyone else - like it, or not. Hardly an unselfish, altruistic action, my friend.

Please do not suggest half the financiers of this sad government takeover jump from a bridge - the repercussions will be far too honest and obvious for anyone to deny:

We cannot afford the monetary costs

We cannot afford the loss of liberties and freedom.

Brammy;

What we need to do is to rebuild our manufacturing base and allow the US to make something other than money.

. . .and without changing any of the things that contributed to our current dilemma - how would you propose to do this? Use government to spend MORE money we don't have to artificially "create and support" a new manufacturing base?

If we aren't willing to understand - and harder yet, ACCEPT - the true mechanics of our situation and adapt accordingly; we perish.

I say ACCEPT, because we dismiss out-of-hand many sensible solutions because we find them unpalatable and difficult; such as solutions that honor liberties and freedom above government force. Some of us cannot accept these things with our zero-tolerance attitudes.

Brammy,
Should we lower labor costs? IN SOME CASES, YES! I don't know about you, but I think that perhaps the UAW might be OVER PAYING the auto workers and it contributed to TAXPAYERS LIKE YOU AND I needing to bail out the auto companies to the tune of $60 Billion. Maybe you are right, we should just kick out all of the evil corporations and NEVER allow them back (by the way, the auto companies that we bailed out are starting to move out anyway.)

Just wondering, what would happen if tomorrow Walmart decided to leave the USA? You think unemployment is bad now, just wait. Walmart employs 1.6 million people in the US alone. Those individuals pay taxes. They probably didn't have this in your propaganda film, but hopefully you still accept it as fact.

Obama would not have any income to cover all of his new entitlement programs without the evil corporations. Sorry, but you need to stop renting the Michael Moore movies and actually do some research on your own!

"Even the most conservative cannot be so self-centered as to think that a person's socio-economic situation should dictate their right to life or care."

Ah yes, Brammy.....your mythical 'right' to the property and labor of others. Just for the record, that was pretty much abolished in this country about a century and a half back.

Broadening coverage is the first step. Stopping the health care holocaust practices and policies in the U.S. medical system must follow close behind it.

wall...

Unfortunately, you are making a common and amateurish error with numbers. For any real comparison, you need to use percentages of population, not raw data. If you did this, you would not find the United States at the top of the HIV list.

wall...

First of all, I fail to see where one's economic philosophy or political persuasion has ever had anything to do with one's ability to do basic mathematics. I noticed that your initial post did not address percentages, but dealt entirely in raw numbers, and I pointed this out. You came back with no clarification of your original position, and in fact compounded your error by moving from "infection rates" to "deaths". That is quite a leap, especially when you are also talking about cost of treatment. I might point out that it is very difficult to treat people who have already died.

To take your two countries as examples, the current population of the United States is approximately 307,996,000. The population of Japan is 127.560,000. In the United States, at present, there are an estimate 984,255 LIVING cases of HIV/AIDS. The equivalent number in Japan is given by their government as 12,000.

If you want to jump back and forth, intermixing mathematical points and baseline terminology, you could say that there were 70 times more deaths (if we just assume your numbers are even close) in the United States than there were in Japan. But for analytical purposes, that is a very red herring, sincce it in no way can be calculated as any kind of "rate". If a country had 100 deaths and another had 1, the first country would have a hundred times more deaths. But again, that is misleading if both countries have a population of 1000.

Try working the numbers I have provided out by percentages of population, as I suggested, and your conclusions become quite silly.

And by the way, the United States certainly does not lead the world in HIV infections. We are actually 69th, and England, which you also mention, is 93rd. South Africa is first.

walt...

As I said before, political persuasion or economic disposition, especially when assumed with absolutely no facts to substantiate such, has nothing to do with the ability the read and understand basic numbers and do simple mathematics. Even many Republicans, conservatives, and free-market capitalists can add, subtract, multiply, and divide.

To make a statement such as you are making has nothing to do with your exceptional cut and paste skills. You simply cherry picked a single variable from a host of those offered to attempt to prove a point. You also failed.

These estimates of incidence cover a six-year span of time, in which a variety of advances have been made, both in those countries with high HIV/AIDS cases, and those with less access to those improvements. These lists were never meant to compare apples to oranges.

Second, in any statistically reliable and valid analysis, it is necessary to consider all variables. In this case, you need to consider not only the number of cases as raw data, but also the total population, the GDP of the country, the percentage of GDP spent on health care and the percentage spent specifically on HIV/AIDS treatment (which has decreased in the United States since 2001 and is also offset by the prolonged tax-paying productivity of the patients).

Your broad generalization that this is the cause of the United States rising health care costs flies in the face of the increases of any number of many more expensive illnesses, which you are not even considering.

Also, you may want to read one post you write before you make a second one.

From one post: "Perhaps you don't know, but the reason this nation spends more than others, is that we have the Highest HIV infection rate of any developed nation."

From another: "And no where did I say the USA had the highest rate of anything."

Hmmmm....

Hee Hee! Now that's change we can count on.

Actually, under Obamacare--everyone will be told to die to reduce the surplus population. Everyone will be equal--equally miserable or dead!

Actually, I've often though we should totally do away with health insurance companies.

Please See:

A Modest Proposal

CaRe, there's a special place in hell for the holocaust promoters.

wall...

Nice cut and paste job. No real facts, though.

Don't let the facts dissuade you. Soldier on.......

You're right. Just pitiful...

Just Facts

These are not BIASED scare tactics. Unfortunately - these are the cold hard facts - if you have insurance - you have a better chance of living well. If you do not have insurance - pray just a little bit harder...

It's been this way since the beginning of the formations of societies. Not just the inception of the U.S.A. The problem is - the people of the U.S.A. think we are "better" than the rest of the world when clearly, as this blog supports, we are not.

It's ok that you don't believe healthcare should be reformed - that's your right - just quit acting like your $&!$ doesn't stink....

"The researchers couldn't pin down the reasons behind the differences they found."

Nothing like great research to back up your "cold hard facts."

"The uninsured might experience more delays being transferred from hospital to hospital. Or they might get different care. Or they could have more trouble communicating with doctors."

...Or they could be abducted by aliens that are only able to be fended off by an insurance card!! Yeah, this is a GREAT article!!

"Gawande favors health care reform and has frequently written about the inequities of the current system."

No chance that the people running this "study" are biased!

Is there no chance that people without insurance, oh I don't know, WAITED LONGER to actually go to the ER.

Liberals always "FEEL' they know what is right. They mean well but are so badly screwed up that rehabilitation is pointless. Arguing with one is a waste of breath.

Just facts:

Liberals always "FEEL' they know what is right. They mean well but are so badly screwed up that rehabilitation is pointless. Arguing with one is a waste of breath.

You're right. I was completely convinced by your fact-filled and well-researched opinion.

mike,
You did a great job of replying to his post - by proceeding to provide ZERO facts or research.

Did you read the article? It was absolute garbage. It is PURE propaganda. I took it apart using basic math skills. Please, make some sort of arguement against what I have posted.

RV in GB#1

Uh...all you did was provide a snide retort and speculate that the researchers were biased. How exactly does one respond to a non-argument?

The article didn't claim that the researchers know why. So actually it's BETTER that they didn't offer up some BS explanation. Now this will get some attention and someone might actually look into it searching for an explanation.

What exactly did you pick apart using basic math skills? Why is it so impossible to believe that people with more money get treated better?

my problem with the GOP and conservatives from day one on this is they never considered "reform" worthwhile effort.

just think if these people had put the same energy behind a solution during the past 8 years they have in pulling down obama! CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE!

what is show3s us is that the conservative media is fundamentally negative and not operating int he best interest of our country.

reform is neeed from a fiscal and human perspective.

Get, Don't worry that is why their party will eventually die look at the rest of the world all conservative parties have died out except ours and 3rd world middle eastern countries HAHA

Just f, that's silly nonsense.

Bad reading comprehension skills?

Robert, I think you might be on the wrong vine. The article isn't about Obama or health care. It's not political or partisan, it's just about a disturbing study done by Harvard about the treatment of uninsured at emergency rooms somehow having an 80% higher incidence of death than insured.

If you have another study showing something different, please provide a link, as not every report is 100% conclusive.

You're not reading between the lines. This is more propaganda to perpetuate a socialized healthcare system. I know what the article says, but what does it really mean? Harvard study..???? MSN Published..???? Daily push on this subject..???? The fact that these patients had nowhere to go is not an issue for an insurer. The patient is patched up and goes home to heal.. We pick up the tab. Benevolence is good. This is not an isurer issue. Don't be so naive.

Who paid for it??

No it's not an issue for an insurer. It's an issue to GET THEM INSURED. It's an issue that says we should be alarmed at the fact that if you get E.R. care and don't have insurance you are twice as likely to die.

That's all it says. If you don't have insurance, don't get hurt, because you will NOT get the same level of treatment as those who do.

Is that RATIONING?

Anyone who is delusional enough to think this is not about Unversal Health Care is sadly mistaken. It is nothing more than words, strategically placed to tug at heartstrings.

My son-in-law, who has excellent insurance, received a blow to the head on a Sunday morning. My daughter took him to Emergency and they waited over three hours while those on FREE MEDICAL were treated for nothing more serious than a runny nose.

Guess what? He had a concussion, Luckily, he survived unscathed. But don't tell me about the "haves" and "have nots." The "have nots" seem to get very good care.

But Clarke if it's not the fault of the big greedy insurance company, than why are does the bill aim to get everybody insured. If they can't treat all the patients they have now, what difference does it make if everyone is insured?

It is rationing and it's being DONE BY the HOSPITAL. It isn't the insurance company! Why does the bill only address one part of the healthcare industry?

It's both hospital and insurance company. Nevertheless, if you can pay, your chances for survival are better. I haven't read the bill, just parts of it. I don't know that it doesn't adress other things, and either do you.

I suspect it covers way more things.

I do know that the reason it aims to get everyone covered is so that this kind of thing doesn't happen as much. And insurance seems to be the key according to the article.

Robert

It's one thing to read between the lines and another to write between the lines. Put down your pen and get your glasses.

If the hospital is not treating due a lack of insurance, and so we pass legislation to cover more people.. . .Who will the hospital not treat then. Another thread had input about those decisions from a hospital administrator. Interesting read.

I know that it covers other things, but the main thrust that we are being sold is that if we are all covered it will be cheaper - I'm not convinced economies of scale work with healthcare.

I've been treated twice without insurance. Once in the emergency room - anaphalactic shock - immediate care, that obviously worked. I already had one shot when I heard them asking my father for my insurance info.

"The commercially insured patients had a death rate of 3.3 percent. The uninsured patients' death rate was 5.7 percent. Those rates were before the adjustments for other risk factors."

Now I didn't go to Harvard, but 3.3 x 2 = 6.6, not 5.7 (Twice as Likely to Die - look at the headline.) That is one issue I have with the above statement from the article.

Another issue that I have with the statement is the qualifier "commercially" before the word insured. That tells me that the study didn't take into account those who HAVE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE - LIKE MEDICARE/MEDICAID!

Finally, what should we assume about the "adjustments for other risk factors" that were not taken into account?

Sorry, but I wouldn't use this article to sell the new health care bill. This "study" is garbage and Harvard should be embarrassed that their name is on it!

Robert, instead of "reading between the lines" and seeing things that aren't there, why don't you try reading what IS there. Maybe you would learn something that's true.

"Sorry, but I wouldn't use this article to sell the new health care bill"
RV: I did not see any mention of the health care legislation in the article. Your other points are also way off target.

GetReal, In the paper itself - specifically in the Critique are of the study, you will find the following quote:

"This article is especially relevant given the priority assigned to health care reform by the current administration."

Here is a link:

http://www.wbur.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/1116_trauma.pdf

RV...

There is no "Critique" area in a scientific study. If you were familiar with standard scientific protocol, you would know that. Actually, if you knew the meaning of the word "critique", you should have been able to figure it out. Scientists do not critique their own research when publishing. That is left to others.

If you had bothered to read the study, or especially the link you posted, you would have realized that this sentence did not come from the original researchers, but from someone who was commenting on the study after peer-review and publication. All studies are subject to the opinions of anyone who reads them, including you. So you are also free to make this same comment and it will have just as much validity as any other opinion, and just as little scientific relationship to the original study.

It was an editorial comment, by an outside reader, as yours would be if you had bothered to at least read the study.

PINCH, I tried to delete the words "area of the study (note the word 'area' is missing the 'a')" and replace it with "section of the paper." There was likely a glitch. If you notice, I wrote the words "IN THE PAPER."

I read the study. It is still garbage.

RV...

No, a study based on sound scientific protocol is not "garbage". It can be critiqued on the basis of specific equally scientific points, which may indicate avenues for replication.

Your comment is an unscientific and unsubstantiated opinion, and leads one to believe you may have read the study, but you did not understand what you read.

Leiya, you can have all of these state provided goodies right now. Just have your travel agent book you one way to Moscow or Havana.

Spider..............I think you mis-interpreted Leyla's post. We already have State and County funding.

Thanks Optomyst! Sometimes the obvious isn't apparent to some. My subtle point I was trying to make was that: God help us if the federal government gets involved.

First, the feds are ALREADY involved. That's simply because Medicare and Medicaid receive federal funding. Second, there is a health care holocaust in this country. There has been for some time. Stop listening to the hate mongers. Wake up, folks.

First, the feds are ALREADY involved. That's simply because Medicare and Medicaid receive federal funding. Second, there is a health care holocaust in this country. There has been for some time. Stop listening to the hate mongers. Wake up, folks.

yeah so what are you a fearmonger? Health care holocaust! omg we're all going to die!

Most of the posts here make me wonder why so many Americans are scared to death of reality and the truth.

Seems fairly clear that the actual fact is that you are about twice as likely to die in E.R. if you don't have insurance.

Now, your turn.

Twist it.

Hmmm...I'm surprised. Usually, research published by Harvard is done pretty carefully. I haven't read the actual study, but they're generally scrupulous about providing endnotes and footnotes, which cite the data from which they draw their results and conclusions. In fact, the study admits they don't know the reasons for the discrepency in deaths, indicating they are not engaging in speculation or hypothesis.

Since you're saying the Harvard researchers are" ignoring... actual facts", can you please let us know which facts are being ignored? Or, as I suspect, you just don't want to hear what is being reported, because it goes against your existing subjective view of the world.

As I said, usually Harvard doesn't publish research until it's been peer-reviewed and confirmed, but maybe you're right and they got sloppy. If so, I'd love to see your work. Thanks.

Read what I said above clarke in number 11..

There are way too many "Mights" in this article. There arent any " facts " because as the article says, they are excluding a lot of issues, and comming to conclusions ( this is where the mights come into play) for this to be scientific and reliable.

When I read this article, its seems pretty likely that you will get better treatment in a well funded hospital, then you will a cash strapped hospital.

Particularly if you have insurance. This is what the gist is. If you have insurance you are more likely to STAY at the non-cash strapped hospital.

This is common knowledge that I've seen on more than one network news expose.

As an ER physician who trained at a trauma center, this doesn't make sense. I for one can tell you, I was too busy to check insurance status. The only thing I can think of is rehab types of things and that would be after discharge. We never treated anyone different medically based on payer status. It wasn;t like on rounds we said "Oh that's a no pay move on." Working at a University Hospital they were almost all welfare no pay. Now working at a private hospital we do not do trauma. There is a level 1 trauma center within 20 miles. It is not cost effective to duplicate those types of services and honestly there is so much litigation involved surgeons don't want to touch it.

Hellb, that's nonsense.

Like the science that say's the earth is cooling? Or the science that says the earth is 6,000 years old?

Yeah, the same ones who care about sciennce, and thus oppose gay rights because the bible told them so? LOL!!!!!!!!!

Umbrellaman,

Sounds like you get your News From Rachel Madcow & Chris Matthews!!!!

Go back to the mental ward and get back on your meds...fruitcake.

Nice cut and paste job...Don't you have a brain off your own...bonehead!!!

Hellbinder

I'm a scientist and what you just said is absolutely false.

This study was in a peer-reviewed journal. Have you ever submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal? Unless you have, your opinion has no merit

I've never seen so much distortion and ignorance as I've seen amonst the right here. The only conclusion you'll make is the one that Sean Hannity got from the republican party, not one made from a critical analysis of the data.

I would surely like to know what misinformation you think you get by watching Rachael Maddow. I watch her all of the time and she will retract anything she says on her show that is proven to be incorrect. She seems highly ethical and informed as opposed to Hannity or O'Reilly who seem to talk rumor instead of facts most of the time.

Ferro-

SO enlighten me about a Peer reviewed journal, because I will freely admit that I have never submitted one.

Is it common place, to take a set of data, admit in the journal that you cannot link everything together, and then inject your personal bias into the paper to come up with the answer you want it to be?

2+2 = 4

but 1+5-2 is also 4 there for -2 is the reason we get the answer. That is putting bias into the paper and makes everything you did " junk "

The articles are reviewed by a number of other scientists in the same field to ensure that nothing sloppy gets into the literature. Usually two or three reviewers are used. It is not uncommon to say you can't figure out all the reasons behind the results. It is also not uncommon to speculate, as long as you state it's speculation it's OK. You can propose a model and then others can do more work to confirm or deny the model.

I don't understand your example, unless what you're saying is that you add -2 to get the answer you want. If that's what you mean, peer review is there to not let that happen. The time this gets cumbersome is when you come up with a new radically different model. Sometimes those are more difficult to get published, but if your logic is correct and the model is supported by the data, it will get published.

NiteOwlett,

I can tell you watch Rachel Madcow, because she makes less sense then you!!! Moron

rachel is much more accurate than any of the Fox News pundits. As pointed out she also admits when she makes a mistake. Just becasue you dont; like what she says doens't mean she's wrong. Tell me where she's wrong instead of just making a fool out of yourself. Quid, you are disgusting.

Umbrellaman - The majority of Americans want reform to the system. They want reform that will bring the cost down so more people will have better access to "affordable" care. What the current congress is doing will destroy what we have now. It wil not make anything better. It is a redistribution of our money to give the government more power over all of us. It has been found through many studies that everyone will pay more if this terrible reform ever gets passed. Reform, yes, takeover, no.

You have been fed incorrect information AND the Republicans are watering down any plans we do come up with, making them far less effective, both economically and feasibly.

I am sorry for your condition, but it is also obvious that you toohave bought into the hype. I lost my 50 year old brother to cancer last year and he had excellent insurance and was able to afford the treatment to continue. Unfortunately for him it became a matter of a choice prolong the inevitable and pain or to decide to let the cancer run it's course. Now, mind you, THIS WAS HIS SECOND BOUT. So do not try to fool me with the broken system BS. It is all BS. The whole story is about choice. Unfortunately people make poor choices. The end result is that poor people who are dying in hospitals are covered. BY MEDICARE. You continue to believe that this program that the government is pushing will make you better. I choose not to.

JH

What you are repeating is the right wing claims. The bill will not destroyn what we have, it will add to it. It WILL make things better by outlawing practices like dropping patients who need expensive care (death panels) and disallowing rejection due to pre-existing conditions. It has NOT been found through many studies to be more expensive, but it has been claimed by biased groups, like the health care insurance companies. You've been sold a bill of goods by the staus quo and it is not the truth.

sorry Nite Owlett the republicans have absolutely no say in this heath scare crap bill being shoved down Americans throats. This is all about the democraps. with their super majorities in both the house and the Senate republicans have been thrown out of the process completely. This is a wrangling between democraps only.

as for the information in the article there are several glaring inaccuracies in the information. first not all of the patients in the emergency room were included in the study. Those who were admitted for burns were not included as well as the numbers for those who were treated and released. Additionally the actual number of both the insured and uninisured were not included which skew the percentages. Since there are far fewer people in America that are uninsured verses the insured people that would skew the numbers. For example in a hospital if 100 insured people showed up and 10 died that is 10% and if 20 uninsured showed and 10 died that is 50% which would leave by this articles math that uninsured people have are 400 more times as likely to die because of the final amount. As with any statistic the study is only as good as the data that goes into it. It is also noted that the article clearly states that there was no conclusion on the actual cause of the deaths and if insurance was a factor. This attributes a devised solution to push this doctors particular political point.

By the numbers of this article and their stated observations it seems that yes the doctors gave substandard care for those who could not prove that they could pay their bill. So insurance is not so much a factor as the fact that doctors are pulling credit reports before administering care. This reflects more on the hospital than if the people had insurance or not. The report does not also deal with lifestyle and health factors that would change the figures. This article is nothing but another propoganda push to try to make obamacare more palatable to those who will have to float the bill at the expense of their own families they have worked so hard to support in these hard times.

Sorry Ferro, but what you are saying is not the truth. You completely disregard several known truths in regards to the federal government, spending, cost effectiveness and efficiency. Nice try though.

The federal government has never, and will never be able to supply a good or service as cost effectively and efficiently as the private sector. That is a fact. You can spin it any way you want, but the proof is in the pudding. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Cash for Clunkers deal, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Government by its very nature is inefficient and fiscally irresponsible. These are the people you want to reform health care???

Also, the simple fact that the government would be the regulator in charge of the rules as well as a competitor means that it would be able to manipulate the system any way it wanted to and eventually the private sector would fold up its tents and go home. Who would want to try and compete against the team that makes all the rules and can change them to benefit themselves whenever they want. And please don't tell me the government would ever do that. I was born at night but it wasn't last night.

Also, there has been no outside scrutiny of any proposed health care legislation. Do you know what's in the bill? I don't and I guarantee you neither does anybody outside of Congress and the President. Why not? Don't you think it would be a good idea to verify what's true and what isn't before they vote on it? Will businesses really get penalized and fined if they don't provide health care, regardless of whether or not they can afford it? How exactly does the government intend to fund this health care program? Who qualifies for it and who doesn't? Another list that goes on and on.

Personally I'm against it because I don't believe in having more money taken away from me to pay for somebody else's problems, which is what I foresee happening in the form of higher taxes to pay for this. It isn't a matter of wanting people to die or not caring about what happens to them. It's a matter of wanting the choice, the freedom to choose how I spend my money and what causes I will give to in order to help. I am far more qualified to decide how to spend the money that I have earned than the federal government is.

Idaho

All speculation on your part, and assuming that cheats will cheat (true) etc. No facts and nothing that disagrees with what I said. I repeat there are no studies saying it will be more expensive except those written by the ones who will be affected by the changes.

One version of the bill was on the net and what was interesting is that all the criticism of that bill by the right turned out to be fabrications, except perhaps the part that it did not contain enforcement to find illegal aliens.

What would you say if the reasons for the higher mortality rate were not associated with the fact that the patients were not insured?

That was my thought as well. If anyone had experience going to an emergency room while not having health insurance knows this scenario to be true.

My son still has a BB in his head to prove it.

The study speaks the truth. The truth of the matter, that poor people are left to die (or caused to die) by the medical system is nothing new to poor and uninsured Americans. We also know that poor and uninsured people are often treated with venomous hatred in medical facilities. More media reports and scientific studies are needed in order to educate others of what is truly going on in the world. There are too many evil insurance companies, politicians, etc. who don't want the truth to be told. They have spent big bucks and forced policies which are aimed at killing the poor people in this country. We need look no farther than the ugly rants on this thread to see that many people value money and profit before human life. It's time that the truth be told. We must bring the U.S. health system holocaust to an end.

Tell me something. Why is it the responsibility of the American taxpayer to pay for everyone's health care huh? Who do you think you are? Do you not understand that most of those conservatives that you seem to have so much hatred for (idiotic as that is since you don't even know them) do not want a government sponsored health care system because they KNOW that the government will require more and more of the TAXPAYER'S money in order to pay for it?

It's all fine and dandy to sit there and scream "we need health care reform now!! The government needs to DO something!!"...but try putting some critical thinking skills to work and think about exactly what that would mean.

First off, if the government becomes a "competitor" it will inevitably eliminate any private insurance eventually. After all, how can you compete fairly against someone who can change the rules anytime they feel like it? Secondly, why in the world would you honestly believe the government can effectively and efficiently run a health care system? I would think Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid would prove to you that the government is incompetent when it comes to running a program with anything remotely resembling financial competence and responsibility.

I also question the moral compass people like you seem to follow. You seem to have no problem demanding that the government reach into peoples' wallets and take away more of their money to pay for your causes. This nation was originally founded on the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, not society. You want to help people, then reach into your own pocket and start handing out your money. God bless you and the fine work you're doing. But don't DEMAND that others do the same. You don't have the right to do that.

By the way, I don't have health care insurance and I suffer from several health related problems (sleep apnea, pinched nerves and others) but you will NEVER hear me demanding that somebody else help me. Taking care of myself is MY responsibility, no one else's.

And by the way Ben, conservatives like me feel compassion for anyone who is in need, regardless of what idealogical idiots like you believe. We just have no desire to be FORCED to help. We prefer to have the choice...something liberals like you are supposed to be for or does that only count in regards to abortion and smoking pot?

Well, if it's the hospital not treating without insurance - who will they not treat when everybody has insurance?

Isn't there a deeper problem here? They took an oath. So did Congress.

Your concern for the uninsured is marred by the statistics in this story.

Ben R: Exactly.

You wouldn't be saying that if something happened to you or someone close to you. Emergency room care better be top notch when one of your family member's lives are on the line. Right?

I live in chicago so I know what you're talking about, however, not all emergency room cases are because of crack heads.

Then the rest of the civilized world is wrong, and the right wing of the conservative party has the lock on truth.

clarke ong - For those who are unwilling to read, or are unable to comprehend what they read, they will probably always be wrong. Maybe reading and high comprehension are traits that characterize conservatives. Read the article!!!

As for opinion - remember that all of the civilized world, at one time, believed the world to be flat, that heavier objects fell to earth at a faster rate than light ones and that the sun revolved around the earth. Just because there is a consensus of opinion, does not make it true.

It is kind of irritating, that the left pretend to be so well educated, to those of us who are.

Just ignore the FACT that countries with UHC outlive us, have lower infant mortality, and are just generally healthier.

Couldn't possibly be because they all have access to healthcare right, because that wouldn't fit your political agenda.

Your turn. Begin the Spin. COULD it be possible that UHC leads to better health generally?

Clarke comparing our country to Swedens 40 million or Canadas or even UK is rather simplisitc

much of our infant mortality has to do with DRUG ABUSE and alcohol abuse etc

when those stats are done on infant mortality etc included are million of poor illegal aliens who enter the country etc

compare out middle class to SWEDENS middle class see what the stats are

comparin USA 300 million multicultural melting point with sweden is rather silly

Clarke there are also many other factors that affect the statistics in thsi country. Statistics like the lifestyle lived verses others. Or the fact that we have a much more divers population with higher risk factors that affect the numbers versus a fairly homogenous population. Additionally if America has a much worse health care system then why do we have a higher survivability rate on serous illnesses such as cancer. why is it that America leads the world on drug research?

The democratic party has more spin going into this legislation than the republicans at this time. This article clearly shows the partisan spin put on incomplete data and shallow assumptions.

Additionally while illegal infant mortalities are counted against us the illegal population is not counted for us. This therefore skews the data again as when the infant dies its nationality is not asked but if an illegal is in this country they are not counted for our population.

Statistics are not true scientific data unless the data is collected and interpreted by non biased parties. Statistics are just like research papers, any endpoint can be reached if you only include the data needed to support your conclusion.

The reason that I don't live in "every other industrialized nation in the world" is that the U.S.A. is BETTER. Don't believe me? Why are so many people trying to get IN?

The artical plainly states that they do not know the reasons why the uninsured have a higher mortality rate. They cite several reasons that will not change should national health care become a reality. The artical even says that government run Medicaid patients suffer from the high mortality rate.

Well yeah there is a simple reason. But there not gonna say it but I will. They really don't give a crap if you live or die when your uninsured or using any government funded insurance.

And those people are more likely to die in E.R. than those who choose to get insurance.

The "free healthcare" argument is getting really old.

Can it.

I'm sorry but this fact does not make me feel sorry for anybody. You get what you pay for. I pay for insurance for myself and my family. If my wife and an uninsured person go to the emergency room with the exact same injury and only one doctor is available, my wife better be seen first. And in fact, she will probably be seen first because of human nature. If you are a doctor would you see someone where you are not sure if you are going to get paid or see somebody where you are guaranteed to get paid?

If I was a Doctor, or if all doctors we're like me, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because I would rather work for nothing than deny anyone of the service I could do for them.

And there are a few doctors like that out there.

clarke ong - do you work for free now? What is the difference between providing your service for free and a doctor providing his service for free?

How do you expect the doctor to provide the supplies, nurses, facility and his training for free? Can you provide your service to your customer for free?

Because you won't die if I don't design a truss for you.

Don't you get it?

Profit should NOT be the overriding principle in ALL areas of our lives.

Don't you get that?

Profit, my imbecilic fellow citizen, is the driving force of our economy. But since it is painfully obvious you have NEVER been successful in our society, your lack of understanding ranks right up there with your lack of intelligence.

Sure it drives our economy, but should it drive our every decision and policy? I'm not advocating Doctors working for free. My point was that I (me, myself) would treat ANYONE who needed it, regardless of their ability to pay.

Because that is what a doctor IS.

A doctor is a craftsman who earns his living working on people just like a plumber works on a toilet. No money incentive no doctor. Surely your feeble mind can understand some basic concepts.

clarke but TRUSS are used to build houses...

why dont you build houses for free?

Housing is a human right..why should anyone have to PAY you for a right?

Get real here. We can't all play on the same golf courses, and we can't all drive the same cars. Success economically brings better things and that is just life. As for healthcare, it should be defined not as EQUAL care for everyone, but for an acceptable minimum standard for everyone and better care for those that can afford better care. To insist on equal care is insane. It dumbs down the system for all in favor of a few. It is like the time they discussed getting rid of "honors" classes because those in the remidial classes felt bad. Typical liberal dumb everyone down argument.

clarke,
Are you saying "And those people are more likely to die in E.R. than those who choose to get insurance" because of the ARTICLE?

This article is FLAWED to say the least. Let me know if you want me to TEAR IT APART with ordinary logic!

I dont care if your Democrat, Republican or Indpendent, why on earth would we leave for profit insurance and drug companies in charge of health care in this country? They are the middle men syphoning off money that should have been spent on actual medical care. Its a no-brainer...

Why would we want government bureaucrats in charge of health care? That should be a no brainer.

yes and why should I pay for you little piggy childrens education

Why should I pay for your social security?

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Rev. Martin Luther King