[My] Life in Wisconsin

How Many Americans Die Yearly Without Health Insurance? ~PolitiFact ~


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-22000-americans-die-yearly-because-t/
"As many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance."


*********************************

Bill Pascrell on Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 in a speech on the House floor
Pascrell says up to 22,000 Americans die yearly because they don’t have health insurance
True

The debate over reforming the U.S. health care system has inspired a torrent of often conflicting statistics. We will look at three assertions made by Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. In this item, we will test his assertion that “as many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance.”

On July 28, 2009, Pascrell took to the House floor to counter assertions by Republicans and others that a Democratic bill under consideration in the chamber would lead to the rationing of health care. Pascrell’s larger point was that rationing already exists today, just a different type – thanks to the financial barriers to coverage faced by millions of Americans.

Specifically, Pascrell said: “Forty-five percent of Americans went without needed care because of costs in this country in 2007. That’s rationing. Fifty-three percent of Americans cut back on their health care in the last year because of costs. That’s rationing. … As many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance. My brothers and sisters, that’s rationing.”

We are not going to weigh in on the question of whether it’s fair to equate Pascrell’s examples of “rationing” with what the bill’s critics charge the bill would do if enacted. Rather, we wanted to gauge whether Pascrell’s numbers were sound. So we looked at these three claims individually.

The number in this claim comes from “Uninsured and Dying Because of It: Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality,” a paper published in January 2008 by the Urban Institute, a think tank. Stan Dorn, a senior research associate, wrote the paper to bring up to date a 2002 study by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine that estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured.

Dorn replicated the methodology of the Institute of Medicine, which developed long-term studies that measured the links between insurance status and death rates. The intitute’s researchers then used annual statistics on insurance rates and deaths to determine an estimate of extra deaths attributable to the lack of insurance. Dorn used newer data to redo the calculations and concluded that 22,000 people died due to lack of insurance in 2006. We tried to contact Dorn to see if the numbers could be brought even further up to date, but we were unable to reach him.

In his paper, Dorn acknowledges important caveats. He writes that his numbers are estimates that should not be viewed “as precise ‘body counts.’ The true number of deaths resulting from uninsurance may be somewhat higher or lower than the estimates in this paper,” adding that that number “is surely significant.”

To his credit, Pascrell appears to understand these uncertainties, saying “as many as 22,000” in his speech, rather than settling on a specific number. And he’s also more up-to-date than his colleague, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who cited the older, 18,000 figure on the July 28, 2009, edition of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show

*********************************

One day you may know and love one of these 22,000 people.
(If you don't already).

XOXO
Me

PLEASE ALSO SEE: my blog entry here:
http://flintville.multiply.com/journal/item/840

Entitled Simply: "Health Care (No Fear, Only FACTS)"


17 comments:

  1. I know someone who thinks if a person is too poor to be able to afford health care then they deserve to die if they get sick. Can you believe that??? If that were the case it wouldn't be the very low income people dieing, because they would presumably qualify for Medicaid. No, it's the low middle income people who are dieing because of lack of health care and / or health insurance. These are the people who, among a lot of other jobs, cook and serve you your food at restaurants, check you into hotels and sell you airline tickets when you travel, they dry clean your clothes, help you when you buy your groceries and fix your car when it breaks down. Low middle income people are the backbone of the economy and without them we couldn't keep our country running. They earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but don't earn enough to pay for health care or health insurance, and they don't have the types of jobs where employers give out insurance benefits. They work harder than probably anyone in this country, and they deserve a break. I should know because I'm one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Something needs to happen and sooner than later. We are one of those said families mentioned in reconstitutedteen's comments. Right now, we have medicaid, but only because my husband has missed over 7 months in work due to health problems. We did not have medicaid the entire time, and the insurance we did have only paid up to $2000. That's all that is offered to my husband through work, $2000 coverage. Not much if you are anything but healthy.

    I don't want insurance to be solved just for us...I want it solved for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They can add my hubby to that list for 2009! Had we been able to afford it, preventative health care may have prolonged his life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well... I dont trust the government to do it right... But I do think something needs to be done.

    Frankly our government .. is a big screwup just waiting for the next disaster. Most in office have never run a business or even understand how you and I live. They are so far removed from the real world that they just dont get it.
    Do I want insurance reform? yes maam.. Do I want some bimbo in Washington deciding on what care is available and for whom?... NOOOOOOOOOO maam! I dont like the idea of deciding on treatment based on what some accountant has decided the worth of the person is. I think thats the biggest issue of all. I also dont believe we can afford to cover the world just because that person makes their way here. NO I dont want to turn away a person dying but instead of giving free care ..they should pay. After all our taxes will be paying for all Americans.

    The health care plan that the dems are discussing.. Have you actually seen a chart telling anyone how it works or how much money its gonna cost the American People????

    ReplyDelete
  5. reading these post has me angry...how is it you cna get medicaid if youre low income? Here they told me..income didnt matter I had to be pregnant....great way to encourage people getting off the system I might say...rolling eyes at KY laws

    ReplyDelete
  6. The government already has several medical health care plans.. 1. medicare, 2, medicaid, 3, the military, 4, the vets, and 5 the congress

    Out of all these the only one I have not heard about the failings and drawbacks ..is the one for the Congress. Now why is that?

    Congress has successfully bankrupted SS and Medicare (which by the way you are forced to take some portion of when you reach a certain age) I think if these people (Congress) were forced to take the insurance that the people of America have to deal with.. These agencies might be in much better condition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In Texas to receive medicaid.. you must be unemployed... There is a childrens program which was severely cut to balance the budget.

    I dont know what the rules and such of Arkansas are yet.. I may have to find out soon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. morysa, accountants already do determine what health care you get if you have health insurance. The insurance company makes decisions on what doctors, hospitals, procedures, medicines, surgery you will or will not get and when you will or will not get that service or those medicines or treatments.

    Remember this, WE CAN VOTE OUT OF OFFICE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO RUN THESE PROGRAMS. WE DON'T GET TO VOTE ON ANY INSURANCE COMPANY OR EMPLOYEE WHO OPERATES THESE INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

    Insurance companies are huge, profit making businesses. One Insurance executive got a salary of $79,000,000 last year. Do you honestly think these super rich insurance executives flying high in their private jets are more interested in your health that a politician that has to run for election every two, four or six years.

    The insurance company executive keeps his job by making profits. So they cut corners, throw out patients, reduce services, and hold off on medicines to increase their profits.

    A government health program does not have to make these huge profits every quarter to appear profitable. It only has to provide honest, efficient, quality service.

    Try an influence your insurance company today and see if they respond to you. Good Luck!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. CONGRESSIONALBUDGETOFFICEDouglasW.Elmendorf,Director
    U.S.Congress
    Washington,DC20515


    July 17, 2009


    Honorable Charles B. Rangel
    Chairman
    Committee on Ways and Means
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on
    Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of H.R. 3200, the America’s
    Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced on July 14, 2009. This
    analysis does not reflect any modifications or amendments made after that date.

    Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for legal residents to
    obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which some
    individuals and families could receive subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of
    purchasing insurance; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; make
    modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and impose an income-tax
    surcharge on high-income individuals.

    CBO’s and JCT’s preliminary assessment of the impact on the federal deficit for the
    bill as introduced is summarized in the following table. The enclosures with this
    letter provide estimates of the changes in the nonelderly U.S. population with health
    insurance coverage, the primary budgetary components of the bill’s major
    provisions related to insurance coverage, and a detailed table of the other
    provisions’ impact on federal direct spending. The estimated impact of the
    provisions related to health insurance coverage is based on specifications provided
    by the committee staff, rather than on a detailed analysis of the legislative language;
    the estimates for other provisions reflect the specific legislative language. (JCT has
    separately published its estimates of the effects of revenue provisions contained in
    1
    )
    H.R. 3200 as introduced.
    1The Joint Committee on Taxation posted its estimate of revenue effects for the introduced version of
    ). Subsequently, JCT posted an estimate on
    H.R. 3200 on July 14, 2009 (see JCX-31-09 at www.jct.gov
    July 16, 2009, for a Ways and Means Committee substitute version of H.R. 3200 (see JCX-33-09). This
    analysis addresses the introduced version of the bill.

    Honorable Charles B. Rangel
    Page 2


    ~

    ~



    Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

    Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    a. Does not include federal administrative costs or account for all effects on other federal programs.

    b. Positive numbers indicate increases in the deficit, and negative numbers indicate reductions in the deficit. Does not include effects on
    spending subject to future appropriation.

    c. These estimates reflect the effects of interactions between insurance coverage provisions and other Medicare and Medicaid provisions.

    d. JCT’s estimates for H.R. 3200, as introduced (JCX-31-09); includes effects on Social Security revenues that are classified as off-budget. In
    addition to these amounts, CBO estimates that other provisions in Division B would increase revenues by about $500 million over the 2010-
    2019 period.

    According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
    net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
    That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage
    provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
    estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
    that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over tho

    ReplyDelete
  10. Among other interesting facts in the CBO's note, I find this highlighted portion to be very compelling.

    XOXO
    Me
    ..

    ReplyDelete
  11. And all of this bears repeating too:
    Taken from my blog entry here: http://flintville.multiply.com/journal/item/840

    Entitled Simply: "Health Care (No Fear, Only FACTS)"

    THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:

    * No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions

    * Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.


    * No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays

    * Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

    * No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care

    * Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

    * No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill

    * Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

    * No Gender Discrimination

    * Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

    * No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage

    * Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

    * Extended Coverage for Young Adults

    * Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

    * Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

    * Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

    XOXO
    Me

    ReplyDelete

  12. Thank you for visiting...
    WHILE i AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT HERE WOULD YOU KINDLY LET ME KNOW WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION FROM?

    I HEARD ON THE NEWS THIS MORNING THAT wASHINGTON will BE ASKING THESE INSURANCE CO (Whoops, sorry about the caps)... insurance companies to provide us with this exact information.
    I say its about time we know.

    XOXO
    Me

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sweet Beep;
    I saw that list early this month on the gop.gov site. Exactly as you have written. It was also quoted on Frank Canzolino's site- and probably a zillion other places too.

    But, (damn these "buts" right)?
    Let's just jump to 116
    How many Americans are losing their health coverage every week now?
    it won't take long to get to 114 million---
    My guess? By the end of this year! But at least then they would have something offered to fall back on.

    XOXO
    Me

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes.. it is on many gop sites.. the fact is I have read these parts myself.. it does exist.. maybe you dont want to see it.. maybe you are not reading all of it. I dont know.. but to keep denying what is there..

    "sigh"

    If you want me to read it differently.. then give me page numbers.. where you found it said differently.. I promise to check it out. Obama talks pretty, many senators talk pretty.. but the words do not match the facts of this bill.

    Now.. I want something that will cover Americans.. not illegals .. I want something that will give me the ability to have a conversation with my doctor and between us make a decision about my health care. I dont want a bureaucratic entity making predesigned choices for me. Or deciding who lives or who dies based on a dollar amount. Or deciding who gets treatment or who doesnt based on dollar amounts and what some research company has decided the value of a human being is.

    I do want a change.. I want it where a person can decide to change jobs and not be tied to a job because of healthcare... I want affordable coverage.. not a one size fits all kind of thing. I think that it is possible..

    This bill hr3200 is not that bill .. Also if you read further.. which Im in the middle of this part.. and its confusing me ..and then I have JT making that worse.. but
    the government will have you fill out paperwork.. giving your personal info.. then when you do go to the doctor.. they (the government) will auto deduct the co pay that will be involved... Now frankly.. I dont mind the government having the info.. because to be honest they have it already because I always do the direct deposit stuff on my taxes.. but I dont always have that kind of money in the account and might have to work out a payment plan. So to have it said that the money would be pulled.. could be a big ouch. Now as I have said Im not done reading that part.. and its confusing at best. totally mind numbing at worst.. I also dont want them pulling it off my tax rebate.. little that it is where I would end up owing because of this entire mess...

    Im getting a headache over this mess...

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is bogus, by the way. So is most of the rest of the 'information' in that copy-and-paste. However, let's tackle Sec. 102c.

    Right now, the bill says:

    "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

    At first glance, your assessment appears correct -- it does appear as if private insurers cannot enroll any new patients...HOWEVER, look closely at the phrase "issuer offering SUCH coverage does not enroll." This modifier, while seemingly insignificant changes the entire meaning of the paragraph.

    "Such coverage" refers to the coverage outlined in the immediately preceding section...thus, "grandfathered health insurance coverage."

    Basically, health insurers will need to offer a greater level of basic care in their minimum package. This means that they will have to increase the benefits they offer. Still, the bill wants to protect consumers from having their health insurance changed.

    So, now, if you have health insurance that is below the new minimum, you can KEEP it, and the insurer must continue to offer it to you. But, when you decide you want to leave the plan, you will not be able to buy the grandfathered insurance. Sec 102 ensures that the insurance company cannot enroll anyone in these grandfathered, and INADEQUATE plans.

    Does that make more sense? This isn't even slightly nefarious. If you like your plan, you keep it. If you don't like it, you use the new exchange to choose which plan you want. The exchange will include a public option (for now), but it also offers all private insurers, as well. You have the CHOICE.

    The whole point is just that the bill makes certain the insurers can't skirt the new policies by offering "grandfathered" plans to patients who didn't already have them. There are no limits on the number of new enrollees in private plans. Properly read, this section is in place to keep insurance companies honest.

    The insurance companies and the big pharmas have spent large and serious $$$ in order to disinform the public about the concepts of this bill, and public health care. My apologies for the length of this response, but as you can see it's necessary - as was the research it took just to find the truth about this one section.

    If you Google the bill, the sort of thing in the copy-and-paste (below) in Morysa's comment is the first thing you'll find. This is not by mistake. It's intended that you should find - read - and accept spurious and false material about healthcare in America.

    The major healthcare corporations have a lot to lose here, and they're not going to go gently.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is where your link took me:

    So secret, we don't know where it is either.

    You’ve followed a link to a page that doesn’t exist. Please use the navigation or search box above or try starting over from our main page.

    Don’t worry; we’ve notified someone that this page is missing.

    ReplyDelete