There have been other studies besides the Harvard study that put the numbers in the 20,000 per year range. But when you start calling the demise of fellow Americans 'statistical noise', it reveals that you and I are not operating under the same set of morals and values. Conservatives never have a penny of human capital in their thinking. It is why I call them the modern day Pharisee. If 20,000 Americans dying prematurely is 'statistical noise', then what is a mere 3,000 Americans dying on 9/11?
You didn't dispute my claims.
And you don't understand statistics (that or your purposefully misinterpreting them).
Noise is noise. I can't help that and neither can you. And The Havard study does not have the kind of precision to pick out 1 in 100. I am sorry...but those are the facts. What you are calling a demise....I am calling exptrapolation based on the most specious of assumptions.
And cut the crap about what conservatives have and don't have. I am not going to rehearse to you how I think the system should work because to this point you are not worth it.
So far, we have established that health care is not explicitly called out in the U.S. Constitution.
Whether you believe, as some of us do, that the Federal Government then has no constitutional authority to pass health care administration, has not been established.
You've seen my arguments.
Let's try using some common sense here.
Uninsured people are more likely to skip screenings and other preventive care, so their medical problems are often diagnosed later, when they are more advanced and tougher to treat. The uninsured are also more likely to skimp on necessary medical care, whether itÂ’s prescription drugs to keep their blood pressure in check or surgery to clear up clogged arteries.
You can make that assertion and I would not dispute it....as a qualitative statement.
This does nothing for your Harvard argument, which also contains quantitative claims that are meaningless. And you never addressed the fact that 99 out of 100 seem to be doing fine.
If this an argument for people having health care, there is no dispute.
It is somehow supposed to implicitly project a conclusion, I don't see it.
There is a group of Americans who DO have health insurance and access to health care. They are seniors. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80.
America Before Medicare
47 MILLIONÂ…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care
51 PERCENTÂ…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare
30 PERCENTÂ…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT
72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security
Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.
Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your point ?
The most telling stories occur at free health care expos around the country. People line up the day before to get free health care. These are not 'welfare queens', over 80% are employed Americans.
Health reform's human stories
New Orleans, La. — — It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.
After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.
Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.
Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.
Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics
And my mother smoked for 50 years and died of lung cancer. Something naturally follow. What is your point in all this ?
That people need health care ?
Or that we should be the ones providing it to them ?
All I need to do is look at people who are taking vacations on their Social Security all the while getting their health care paid for by the guy down the street who can't take vacations because of the money he is paying out of check for his neighbors care....to know that I don't think medicare is the greatest thing in the world...in fact....I think it sucks in many ways.
However, that does not mean I don't believe in people having health care.
They are two different issues and you somehow seem to think that we can read between the lines and figure out how you are connecting them.
In fact, there are even more issues without relevence to the conversation that you keep bringing up. As I pointed out earlier, people who lose their houses because they went bankrupt got the care they needed (and they didn't pay for it). That they lost their houses is a different issue. They got the care. If we are talking medical care, that is one thing. If we are talking safety nets, that is something else.
If these are your facts and figures you plan to bury me with, you'd better get a better shovel. Right now, all you are doing is blathering.
. 
