Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
One of the things I've watched with some interest is the way in which the left quotes the 2009 Harvard "study" which somehow teases out a number of 45,000 so called pemature deaths due to a lack of health care.
This number was quoted on all fronts every night (it seemed) by the left in their desire to support the ACA. I was, again, reminded of it when intellectual giant Bill Maher quoted it in an interview where he efficiently dodged any questions about the mess the ACA has created.
Understanding this is the "Clean Debate Zone" where we are supposed to "debate" and not just throw stones, I decided to assert (once again) that the study is bogus and that utilizing as an argument for health care is foolish as it is a projection based on a group of assumptions and has never been close to being proven.
And so:
1. The study methodology (which isn't real clear in the summaries). It does not appear that all other causations have been eliminated or accounted for. In fact, one rebuttal stated that race was a significant factor in the results. It is a projection based on percentages. There is no effort to identify people where this can be specifically applied.
2. There is an issue with using these numbers as pointed out below:
3. The left, despite my constant asking, has never been able to provide the names of people where this specifically applies. The study is now over 10 years old and there should be an identifiable 500,000 deaths that can directly attributed to lack of health care. Not one name (although many have cited people dying in Britan due to the NHC system).
And so I would argue that:
Using the number as a "fact" is ignorant or intellectually dishonest (or some of both).
This number was quoted on all fronts every night (it seemed) by the left in their desire to support the ACA. I was, again, reminded of it when intellectual giant Bill Maher quoted it in an interview where he efficiently dodged any questions about the mess the ACA has created.
Understanding this is the "Clean Debate Zone" where we are supposed to "debate" and not just throw stones, I decided to assert (once again) that the study is bogus and that utilizing as an argument for health care is foolish as it is a projection based on a group of assumptions and has never been close to being proven.
And so:
1. The study methodology (which isn't real clear in the summaries). It does not appear that all other causations have been eliminated or accounted for. In fact, one rebuttal stated that race was a significant factor in the results. It is a projection based on percentages. There is no effort to identify people where this can be specifically applied.
2. There is an issue with using these numbers as pointed out below:
Katherine Baicker, a Harvard University health economics professor, echoed that it’s hard to get good evidence for a connection between lacking insurance and dying. The uninsured often earn less money than those who have insurance, she said, and poverty is associated with worse health.
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said.
Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, told us in an interview that he, too, thinks the number of deaths is impossible to nail down. In addition to Kronick’s skepticism, he pointed to a study of Oregon’s Medicaid experiment (which Baicker co-authored and PolitiFact looked at here) that found no significant improvement in health outcomes, including conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar, between a group of new Medicaid enrollees and uninsured Oregonians who could not get on the Medicaid rolls.
"Like Kronick, I am a strong advocate of measures to achieve universal insurance coverage and would rather that Kronick’s study and the Oregon project provided evidence in support of my policy preference," he said. "But, as far as mortality is concerned, they just don’t."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/a...rayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
"So when you see that the uninsured have higher mortality, you don't know whether it is because they are uninsured or because they are lower income," Baicker said.
Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, told us in an interview that he, too, thinks the number of deaths is impossible to nail down. In addition to Kronick’s skepticism, he pointed to a study of Oregon’s Medicaid experiment (which Baicker co-authored and PolitiFact looked at here) that found no significant improvement in health outcomes, including conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar, between a group of new Medicaid enrollees and uninsured Oregonians who could not get on the Medicaid rolls.
"Like Kronick, I am a strong advocate of measures to achieve universal insurance coverage and would rather that Kronick’s study and the Oregon project provided evidence in support of my policy preference," he said. "But, as far as mortality is concerned, they just don’t."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/a...rayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
3. The left, despite my constant asking, has never been able to provide the names of people where this specifically applies. The study is now over 10 years old and there should be an identifiable 500,000 deaths that can directly attributed to lack of health care. Not one name (although many have cited people dying in Britan due to the NHC system).
And so I would argue that:
Using the number as a "fact" is ignorant or intellectually dishonest (or some of both).
Last edited:
