Names of the dead:

[California Girl]

and you have to make up whatever they don't pay by higher insurance premiums. And do you really think all the un insured can afford medical? They can serve you your food but god forbid they have affordable health insurance or even affordable cancer treatment.
How about the people who do have health insurance but go bankrupt because their HMO doesn't cover a treatment or only covers a certain amount?

I am totally in support of health insurance reform. I am not in support of paying for lazy asses who won't pay for themselves. As far as I am aware, there is no treatment for terminal stupidity and those who choose not to make sure they have insurance do not deserve my concern.

Just as soon as I see a bill that will work without bankrupting the country, and is reasonable and properly funded, takes care of those who really need to be taken care of, guarantees me that illegal aliens will not be covered, etc. Then, I'm up for considering it. Until then, no.

What about hardworking people who get "cancer" and are dropped by their insurance company? Are they also "lazy asses"?

Remember, the CEO of Cigna gets nearly a quarter billion over 5 years in salary and compensation. Five of the highest paid 100 executives in the US work at Cigna. Cigna has two corporate jets on standby worth more than 68 million. The Board of Directors eats off gold plated silver and plates.

Cigna makes nothing and performs no "service" except to stand between you and your doctor.

How many policies do you have to "skim" to get a quarter billion? How many operations denied to pay for two jets?
How many dead to pay for gold plated silver and plates?

Don't ask for links. I've linked to these facts more than a dozen times. Go find out the truth before commenting.

I'm well aware of the amounts paid to Cigna and others, thanks. They are a business and businesses make profit.

I don't disagree that the industry needs reform - I'm not opposed to reform. I am opposed to this reform. I am aware that people get their insurance pulled when they need it most and that is a dispicable practice that must be dealt with. I am also aware of doctors who have to order a battery of tests that they know are unnecessary to stop some asshole sueing them afterwards.

However, this thread is about some 44,000 dead people. Well, of that 44,000 I'd like to know how many could afford insurance who chose not to have it. Simple question. I like fact and debate - I do not appreciate the 'think of the dying babies' scenario.... It, like the race card, cheapens debate and is designed to make it look like everyone who disagrees with you is a hardless bastard. In fact, we are not. We want proper reform - not Obamacare.

 

[Fatality]

stfu ya fucking monkey. your stupid plans to clean up your own mess are nothing but a rehash of the same failed policies of the past. didnt work for stalin and they wont work for you

It takes a big bad man to talk smack on the internet. Are you really that pathetic in real life, that you have to come here to puff your chest? It's pretty obvious you have no social skills even in real life. I feel sorry for you.

it take a pathetic little weenie like you to grovel at the feet of government with your hand out waiting for your master to come along and stuff something into it. got your mouth open to i see, you keep your master a busy man filling up all your needs.

if it was left up to liberals everyone would be in chains

 

[Fatality]

The Bogus Death Statistic

Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: "Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives."

How did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants whether they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Himmelstein, Woolhandler and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.

At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America's callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:

"Our study has several limitations," the authors concede. The survey data they used "assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview." Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance -- and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.

Another caveat you won't see on Grayson's memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that "earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7 percent and 11 percent of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample."

liberal caught in their lies once again, they just make it up as they go. you can always count on liberals to lie, its in their blood.

 

[MajikMyst]

However, this thread is about some 44,000 dead people. Well, of that 44,000 I'd like to know how many could afford insurance who chose not to have it. Simple question. I like fact and debate - I do not appreciate the 'think of the dying babies' scenario.... It, like the race card, cheapens debate and is designed to make it look like everyone who disagrees with you is a hardless bastard. In fact, we are not. We want proper reform - not Obamacare.

This thread is about the 44,000 people that don't have insurance but want it.. They died due to medical issues that they would have otherwised have lived had they had insurance... Hence the fact that they died.. I know of nobody in a hospital wishing they didn't have insurance... Well.. Except for Fatality.. He strikes me as being that stupid..

This isn't about a health 20 something that chooses not to get it and then is killed in a car accident.. All these people died because they couldn't have access to the care they needed.. Either by being cut off by their existing policy, like the guy New York that Guardian just cut off..

These people either had insurance and was cut off for some reason, were denied insurance for some reason, or simply couldn't afford it.. They all wanted it..

So to answer your question.. The answer is ZERO! None of them chose not to get insurance.. All of them wanted it and didn't get it for one reason or another.. And they all died because of it..

I hope this clears things up for you..

On another note?? Since Obama has yet to write a single word in a bill for health reform?? What is obama care?? So far the bills all been written by members of congress.. So wouldn't this be congress care?? Or are you so much of a racist that you don't care if he wrote it or not?? I thought you wanted facts and only facts?? Well let's start with the fact that there is no such thing as Obama care and there never has been..

 

[AllieBaba]

Names of the Dead

Every year, more than 44,000 Americans die simply because have no health insurance.

Republicans are going ballistic over this site. We know why. It's because they feel it costs too much money to save these Americans. If we pay for all these people, we can't start more "wars" that would keep America "safe"..

Pure, unalderated bullshit.

 

[MajikMyst]

Names of the Dead

Every year, more than 44,000 Americans die simply because have no health insurance.

Republicans are going ballistic over this site. We know why. It's because they feel it costs too much money to save these Americans. If we pay for all these people, we can't start more "wars" that would keep America "safe"..

Pure, unalderated bullshit.

Why?? Cause you say it is?? Repukes are the ones against health reform and a public option..

Unless you morons can come up with a real way to hold insurance companies liable for their actions.. Then we need a public option..

Everything stated above is the truth... You denying it doesn't make it so.. You ask yourself and other repukes why they are against healthcare for americans?? Keeping in mind that our soldiers enjoy a public option and we wouldn't stand for the insurance companies treating our soldiers the same way they treat us.. Seriously put up a real arguement or just shut up..

 

[Immanuel]

The Bogus Death Statistic

liberal caught in their lies once again, they just make it up as they go. you can always count on liberals to lie, its in their blood.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20091023/cm_uc_crmmax/op_1911743

Link to the article.

Thanks Fatality

This thread is about the 44,000 people that don't have insurance but want it.. They died due to medical issues that they would have otherwised have lived had they had insurance... Hence the fact that they died.. I know of nobody in a hospital wishing they didn't have insurance... Well.. Except for Fatality.. He strikes me as being that stupid..

Not according to the article. They asked people if they had insurance at a particular time. Then they tracked those people until 2000 except they did not track their insurance status. If those people died in that time frame they marked it off to being uninsured. They could have died of Cancer and been insured at the time of death and the doctors could have done everything possible to save their lives, but the cause of death is "uninsured". If that is the case then the claim is BS.

Immie

 

[JD_2B]

I am totally in support of health insurance reform. I am not in support of paying for lazy asses who won't pay for themselves. As far as I am aware, there is no treatment for terminal stupidity and those who choose not to make sure they have insurance do not deserve my concern.

Just as soon as I see a bill that will work without bankrupting the country, and is reasonable and properly funded, takes care of those who really need to be taken care of, guarantees me that illegal aliens will not be covered, etc. Then, I'm up for considering it. Until then, no.

What about hardworking people who get "cancer" and are dropped by their insurance company? Are they also "lazy asses"?

Remember, the CEO of Cigna gets nearly a quarter billion over 5 years in salary and compensation. Five of the highest paid 100 executives in the US work at Cigna. Cigna has two corporate jets on standby worth more than 68 million. The Board of Directors eats off gold plated silver and plates.

Cigna makes nothing and performs no "service" except to stand between you and your doctor.

How many policies do you have to "skim" to get a quarter billion? How many operations denied to pay for two jets?
How many dead to pay for gold plated silver and plates?

Don't ask for links. I've linked to these facts more than a dozen times. Go find out the truth before commenting.

I'm well aware of the amounts paid to Cigna and others, thanks. They are a business and businesses make profit.

And apparently the "business" of the health insurance industry's focus on profits rather than upholding their end of their contracted promises, is all that seems to be of importance for you??? Wow talk about being a gold-digging apathetic bitch..

I don't disagree that the industry needs reform - I'm not opposed to reform. I am opposed to this reform. I am aware that people get their insurance pulled when they need it most and that is a dispicable practice that must be dealt with. I am also aware of doctors who have to order a battery of tests that they know are unnecessary to stop some asshole sueing them afterwards.

If they knew those tests were unneccessary, they probably shouldn't be issuing them in the first place. Sorry hun, but medical malpractice does seem to cover lack of treatment, if the physician is just running unwarranted tests for no fucking reason. I am, however, not in the least bit surprised that you empathize with doctors who take advantage of patients and chalk it up (unethically) to avoiding lawsuits. If the doctor is hard pressed for cash, they could TRY for once, referring people to the proper specialist, instead of taking advantage of the patient AND committing insurance fraud.. But the fuck if you would have any grasp on medical ethics.. you would prefer for people to just get these medically unneccessary tests (some of which are paid with cash by uninsured people) and die anyways.. Fuck em right! Fuck THEM. All hail Doctor Kevorkian.. Isnt that right.. I mean do you even READ what you are posting here???

However, this thread is about some 44,000 dead people. Well, of that 44,000 I'd like to know how many could afford insurance who chose not to have it. Simple question. I like fact and debate - I do not appreciate the 'think of the dying babies' scenario.... It, like the race card, cheapens debate and is designed to make it look like everyone who disagrees with you is a hardless bastard. In fact, we are not. We want proper reform - not Obamacare.

Out of those 44,000- how many have had it in the past and been dropped, due to the recently well documented unemployment rate?? Lets assess both sides of this debate, rather than being so OBVIOUSLY partisan about it, right off the fucking bat.

 

[Immanuel]

However, this thread is about some 44,000 dead people. Well, of that 44,000 I'd like to know how many could afford insurance who chose not to have it. Simple question. I like fact and debate - I do not appreciate the 'think of the dying babies' scenario.... It, like the race card, cheapens debate and is designed to make it look like everyone who disagrees with you is a hardless bastard. In fact, we are not. We want proper reform - not Obamacare.

Out of those 44,000- how many have had it in the past and been dropped, due to the recently well documented unemployment rate?? Lets assess both sides of this debate, rather than being so OBVIOUSLY partisan about it.

I agree, it could have gone both ways and from what I read in the article the producers pointed out from the get go the flaws that they saw in how this was prepared.

I do, however, think with those flaws that it is disingenuous of Rep. Grayson to claim that 44,000 lives (every year?) are lost because of the lack of insurance. That is not what the article claimed. That is a real stretch of the facts IMHO.

Immie

 

[Old Rocks]

bullshit, you people fuck things up then act as if you have the answer, youre answers are only more fuck up...fuck up upon fuck up, pile upon pile of retarded lieral bullshit..nothing but ideas form the trash can of history.

Please, back up your claim with something besides cussing. I mean, I know to be a con you have to be very dumb and close to illiterate, so I suppose I can dismiss that. However, can you back up your claim that I am full of it with any shred of fact at all? It's common knowledge that the last admin did some fairly heavy deregulation, unless you are referring to Bush and deregulation as liberal bullshit.

Please, explain to me how Bush Admin. deregulation and skyrocketing costs of conservative run insurance companies are really caused by liberals?

I'm guessing you can't because that would mean you would have to actually have to explain yourself with logic, something you have none of judging by your response.

all anyone has to do is look at history, you people are nothing but fuck ups

You assholes had eight years in which to prove how good at governance you are. Eight years of total failure and incompetance. Eight years with two failed wars and damned near a Second Great Republican Depression.

 

[dilloduck]

The obvious answer is to take money from the haves and give it too the have nots. There will be no repercussions from doing that. It's fool proof. We will all be happy and healthy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, although the number may not be 44,000, many thousands of Americans die every year because they cannot get preventive care for lack of insurance.

But to me, the primary case against our present system is that we pay double, do not cover all of our citizens, and get really poor results. There are hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And over 75% of them have insurance. In spite of not covering all of our citizens, we still payed out over 17% of our GDP on health care last year.

Japan spent only 8% of their GDP, they have the highest longevity in the world, and their only competition for quick medical service is Germany. And in both nations they cover all of their citizens, and the number of families going bankrupt due to medical bills is zero.

In fact, little Costa Rica, with one tenth the average income per citizen as the US, ranks third, just behind France, in longevity. And they have had universal health care for 60 years.

So, here in the US, supposedly the freest nation in the world, we have our citizens dying by the thousands for a system that rewards people who do nothing but shuffle paper and deny our working men and women the health care that they have paid for. We have families by the hundreds of thousands losing all they have earned because of medical bills, and the present system is defended by the Party of "Family Values". Freedom to be sick, bankrupt, and make health care insurers filthy rich.

 

[Old Rocks]

The obvious answer is to take money from the haves and give it too the have nots. There will be no repercussions from doing that. It's fool proof. We will all be happy and healthy.

The repercussions right now from the present medical system that we have are obvious. In Canada, less than one child in 100,000 dies from early childhood respitory diseases. In the US, over 40 per 100,000 is the number.

 

[dilloduck]

The obvious answer is to take money from the haves and give it too the have nots. There will be no repercussions from doing that. It's fool proof. We will all be happy and healthy.

The repercussions right now from the present medical system that we have are obvious. In Canada, less than one child in 100,000 dies from early childhood respitory diseases. In the US, over 40 per 100,000 is the number.

Do you think demographics might have soemthing to do with it or is that just absurd ?

 

[Immanuel]

Please, back up your claim with something besides cussing. I mean, I know to be a con you have to be very dumb and close to illiterate, so I suppose I can dismiss that. However, can you back up your claim that I am full of it with any shred of fact at all? It's common knowledge that the last admin did some fairly heavy deregulation, unless you are referring to Bush and deregulation as liberal bullshit.

Please, explain to me how Bush Admin. deregulation and skyrocketing costs of conservative run insurance companies are really caused by liberals?

I'm guessing you can't because that would mean you would have to actually have to explain yourself with logic, something you have none of judging by your response.

all anyone has to do is look at history, you people are nothing but fuck ups

You assholes had eight years in which to prove how good at governance you are. Eight years of total failure and incompetance. Eight years with two failed wars and damned near a Second Great Republican Depression.

Honestly, do you think in eight years we will not be saying the same kinds of things about the Obama administration? We will still be in those two failed wars. We'll be saying things like, "he said he was bringing our soldiers home and now we have 50% more men there than we did when he took over." This so called healthcare solution won't solve the problem and will probably make things a hell of a lot worse in the long run IF anything happens with it at all.

Neither side has done us a damned bit of good in decades, yet we just keep electing the same assholes over and over again.

Immie