|
|
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
First ... 15 65 105 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 125 ... Last
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
What the authors present is not their theory. What they present is their conclusion which has no less than a 95% confidence interval, basically meaning that their conclusions have a 95% chance of being statistically correct upon the same study being repeated by other researchers. The study methods also had to meet the scrutiny of the board which approves such studies for publishing at the American Journal of Public Health, which is never an easy task.
If you'd like to provide any evidence to substantiate your claim that the study conclusions should have had confidence intervals less than 95%, and therefore not statistically significant, go right ahead. It appears that you only want to trivialize and politicize the study, but remain distant of actually challenging it in any meaningful way. To continue to do so it to just pick at the edges.
I will preface this by noting, once again, that I do not have access to the full document at this moment..... however....What the authors present is not their theory. What they present is their conclusion which has no less than a 95% confidence interval, basically meaning that their conclusions have a 95% chance of being statistically correct upon the same study being repeated by other researchers. The study methods also had to meet the scrutiny of the board which approves such studies for publishing at the American Journal of Public Health, which is never an easy task.
If you'd like to provide any evidence to substantiate your claim that the study conclusions should have had confidence intervals less than 95%, and therefore not statistically significant, go right ahead. It appears that you only want to trivialize and politicize the study, but remain distant of actually challenging it in any meaningful way. To continue to do so it to just pick at the edges.
First:
"What the authors present is not their theory."
Actually, that is exactly what they are presenting...... although it is becoming increasingly common for people to present theory as fact, that does not make it so.
Second:
The authors do not say there is a 95% percent chance that figure of a 40% increase is correct. What they way is that if the work they have done is repeated (presumably using similar assumptions to those they have made) then there is a 95% chance that the value will be between 6% and 84%....... certainly sounds different when put like that huh?
Originally Posted by groovy:
I think this is true. But people avoid seeking medical attention for a variety of reasons. In fact, some people avoid getting insurance for some of the same reasons they avoid medical attention. They just don't want to face it. I might add, by the way, that I suspect the biggest single reason people avoid medical care is work/career.
But, having said that, will you admit by the same logic that people who have free access to medical care are more likely to seek medical attention inappropriately?
"In fact, some people avoid getting insurance for some of the same reasons they avoid medical attention."I think this is true. But people avoid seeking medical attention for a variety of reasons. In fact, some people avoid getting insurance for some of the same reasons they avoid medical attention. They just don't want to face it. I might add, by the way, that I suspect the biggest single reason people avoid medical care is work/career.
But, having said that, will you admit by the same logic that people who have free access to medical care are more likely to seek medical attention inappropriately?
Exactly! My thoughts exactly, and hence why I would like to see the full article..... I suspect the authors have not considered this. Perhaps people who do not seek medical attention frequently also don't see the point in paying for insurance? This may not be a large contribution.... who knows? I am just not inclined to take my science from press releases as they tend to over simplify and misrepresent things.
Originally Posted by anthillmob:
Second:
The authors do not say there is a 95% percent chance that figure of a 40% increase is correct. What they way is that if the work they have done is repeated (presumably using similar assumptions to those they have made) then there is a 95% chance that the value will be between 6% and 84%....... certainly sounds different when put like that huh?
To which section of the complete study that you've not seen are you referring (since this was not included in Zelgo's original post)?Second:
The authors do not say there is a 95% percent chance that figure of a 40% increase is correct. What they way is that if the work they have done is repeated (presumably using similar assumptions to those they have made) then there is a 95% chance that the value will be between 6% and 84%....... certainly sounds different when put like that huh?
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
To which section of the complete study that you've not seen are you referring (since this was not included in Zelgo's original post)?
Maybe I made it up :-)? Of course, you have seen more than Zelgo originally posted as well..... hence your quote:To which section of the complete study that you've not seen are you referring (since this was not included in Zelgo's original post)?
"Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:jjj–jjj. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157685)"
Actually, I just went straight to the journal webpage, on the assumption I would have access to the article. Which it turns out I don't :-(. However, I could see the abstract, which puts as good a spin on things as the authors can (if they are doing their job correctly). The abstract is below for the reading pleasure of others.
"Abstract
Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data.
Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to 64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death.
Results. Among all participants, 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5%, 3.7%) died. The hazard ratio for mortality among the uninsured compared with the insured, with adjustment for age and gender only, was 1.80 (95% CI=1.44, 2.26). After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.
Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time.
Key Words: Insurance, Health Financing, Access to Care, Mortality, Surveys"
Originally Posted by anthillmob:
Maybe I made it up :-)? Of course, you have seen more than Zelgo originally posted as well..... hence your quote:
"Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:jjj–jjj. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157685)"
Actually, I just went straight to the journal webpage, on the assumption I would have access to the article. Which it turns out I don't :-(. However, I could see the abstract, which puts as good a spin on things as the authors can (if they are doing their job correctly). The abstract is below for the reading pleasure of others.
"Abstract
Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data.
Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to 64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death.
Results. Among all participants, 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5%, 3.7%) died. The hazard ratio for mortality among the uninsured compared with the insured, with adjustment for age and gender only, was 1.80 (95% CI=1.44, 2.26). After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.
Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time.
Key Words: Insurance, Health Financing, Access to Care, Mortality, Surveys"
And don't get me started on the sentence withMaybe I made it up :-)? Of course, you have seen more than Zelgo originally posted as well..... hence your quote:
"Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:jjj–jjj. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157685)"
Actually, I just went straight to the journal webpage, on the assumption I would have access to the article. Which it turns out I don't :-(. However, I could see the abstract, which puts as good a spin on things as the authors can (if they are doing their job correctly). The abstract is below for the reading pleasure of others.
"Abstract
Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data.
Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to 64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death.
Results. Among all participants, 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5%, 3.7%) died. The hazard ratio for mortality among the uninsured compared with the insured, with adjustment for age and gender only, was 1.80 (95% CI=1.44, 2.26). After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.
Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time.
Key Words: Insurance, Health Financing, Access to Care, Mortality, Surveys"
"uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death."
Presumably this included those who were without insurance short term as well as those who have been without insurance since the interview (20 years ago). I wonder if the authors take this into account? As I have said before, I don't know, I have not read the article yet...... I just don't trust press releases as a source of science.....
Just so everyone knows, according to these numbers, roughly 12-18% of the uninsured will die because the don't have insurance.
That's a big pill to swallow.
That's a big pill to swallow.
Originally Posted by davidra:
So therefore you will start smoking, stop exercising, eat whatever you want, and totally ignore street signs, since those things won't kill you either. They'll just increase the risk. And guess what? When you die from a heart attack with a major contribution from smoking, your death certificate doesn't say "cigarettes" on it. So light up, bucko. And when you die from running a stop sign, that doesn't appear on your death certificate either.
Do you have health insurance? If so, that demonstrates that indeed, you are very cognizant of risk; in fact, you're willing to pay your own money because of it.
Your arguments are specious and absurd.
No and neither will most folks. Why would they? Talk about "specious and absurd".So therefore you will start smoking, stop exercising, eat whatever you want, and totally ignore street signs, since those things won't kill you either. They'll just increase the risk. And guess what? When you die from a heart attack with a major contribution from smoking, your death certificate doesn't say "cigarettes" on it. So light up, bucko. And when you die from running a stop sign, that doesn't appear on your death certificate either.
Do you have health insurance? If so, that demonstrates that indeed, you are very cognizant of risk; in fact, you're willing to pay your own money because of it.
Your arguments are specious and absurd.
Of course I have health insurance. I have it because it protects against the FINANCIAL risk of illness or injury. It doesn't keep you from dying. If it did it would be the most popular and sought after item on the planet.
I understand risk very well and take as few as possible. Have always been that way. Even before I had health insurance.
Man do you really believe the crap you say?
Originally Posted by groovy:
Just so everyone knows, according to these numbers, roughly 12-18% of the uninsured will die because the don't have insurance.
That's a big pill to swallow.
Well sure... if you actually look at the numbers and ask yourself does this make sense/does this seem reasonable, then things start to seem a little less reliable. However, I am frequently surprised by what people who look no further than the that the big scary numbers support their argument are willing to swallow......Just so everyone knows, according to these numbers, roughly 12-18% of the uninsured will die because the don't have insurance.
That's a big pill to swallow.
Originally Posted by zelgo:
They became staunch advocates of single-payer because their research shows what not have a single-payer system is doing to people in this country.
So it would be safe to say you do want a single payer system? I mean, I hear a lot of people denying that. I just want to make sure you're on the record as being for that.They became staunch advocates of single-payer because their research shows what not have a single-payer system is doing to people in this country.
Originally Posted by zelgo:
I have been on the records many times in this thread that the only viable system, shown to work in other industrialized nations, with much cheaper costs than here and much better quality, is single payer.
...and looking at the evolution of healthcare in other countries, we'll get it in about 10 years.
So, then, why would you want Obama's reform? Or are you saying that Obama's reform is a good stepping stone to a single-payer health care system?I have been on the records many times in this thread that the only viable system, shown to work in other industrialized nations, with much cheaper costs than here and much better quality, is single payer.
...and looking at the evolution of healthcare in other countries, we'll get it in about 10 years.
Originally Posted by Woof:
Of course I have health insurance. I have it because it protects against the FINANCIAL risk of illness or injury. It doesn't keep you from dying.
Well, that in and of itself is a huge issue, particularly when the rates of insurance are climbing so quickly that many of us who are currently insured may not be in the fairly near future, as companies lose the ability to pay for it.Of course I have health insurance. I have it because it protects against the FINANCIAL risk of illness or injury. It doesn't keep you from dying.
It would be nice to know that if my wife or I get seriously ill, that I don't have to lose my house and my kids can still go to college.
I will disagree about the fact that insurance doesn't keep you from dying - if you didn't have insurance and thus didn't get early care, you very well could die. The data clearly supports that, and I've yet to see anyone show data to show that lack of insurance isn't correlated with mortality.
So my challenge to anyone is to show the data, rather than simply saying "that data can't be valid".
Originally Posted by groovy:
So, then, why would you want Obama's reform? Or are you saying that Obama's reform is a good stepping stone to a single-payer health care system?
It doesn't have to be either - it could simply be that Obama's vision of health care is politically doable and better than what we have now. I've never been a believer that you can't make any change unless you get everything you want....as has been said many times in this debate "we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".So, then, why would you want Obama's reform? Or are you saying that Obama's reform is a good stepping stone to a single-payer health care system?
Originally Posted by Bujin:
Well, that in and of itself is a huge issue, particularly when the rates of insurance are climbing so quickly that many of us who are currently insured may not be in the fairly near future, as companies lose the ability to pay for it.
data please. show us which companies are in danger of not being able to pay. Not denying that it's true, I'd just like you to substantiate your claim.Well, that in and of itself is a huge issue, particularly when the rates of insurance are climbing so quickly that many of us who are currently insured may not be in the fairly near future, as companies lose the ability to pay for it.
Originally Posted by :
It would be nice to know that if my wife or I get seriously ill, that I don't have to lose my house and my kids can still go to college.
Sell the house and make the kids pay for their own college. Home ownership and college arent rights, just healthcare remember.It would be nice to know that if my wife or I get seriously ill, that I don't have to lose my house and my kids can still go to college.
Originally Posted by :
I will disagree about the fact that insurance doesn't keep you from dying - if you didn't have insurance and thus didn't get early care, you very well could die. The data clearly supports that, and I've yet to see anyone show data to show that lack of insurance isn't correlated with mortality.
Gee what about those that didnt have insurance and got care? Punches a whole in that no insurance kills theory I think. And let's not forget those folks that have insurance and just never seek care. Do their terminal illnesses suddenly become non-terminal? Do their severe injuries from that head on collision suddenly vanish because the have coverage? Nope.I will disagree about the fact that insurance doesn't keep you from dying - if you didn't have insurance and thus didn't get early care, you very well could die. The data clearly supports that, and I've yet to see anyone show data to show that lack of insurance isn't correlated with mortality.
To use your words "if you didn't have insurance and thus didn't get early care, you very well could die." But anyone with an ounce of common sense also knows that if you DID have insurance and didn't get early care, you very well could still die.
Originally Posted by :
So my challenge to anyone is to show the data, rather than simply saying "that data can't be valid".
What data? that's an opinion. Where did I say the data was invalid? So my challenge to anyone is to show the data, rather than simply saying "that data can't be valid".
How about we try an experiment. Let's all go down to our respective ERs and see how many of the folks that die have insurance and how many that don't walk out. I'm gonna bet that you will find members of both.
Originally Posted by Woof:
Sell the house and make the kids pay for their own college. Home ownership and college arent rights, just healthcare remember.
There's the difference in our philosophy right there. Some folks feel that betting your financial future on continued good health is the best our country can provide for its citizens, and others don't. But, hey, if you get cancer, just sell the house, live in your car, and tell the kids they're on their own!Sell the house and make the kids pay for their own college. Home ownership and college arent rights, just healthcare remember.
All other advanced countries can manage health care, but we just don't have the will.....but of course, our system is better. Yeesh.
Originally Posted by :
Gee what about those that didnt have insurance and got care? Punches a whole in that no insurance kills theory I think. And let's not forget those folks that have insurance and just never seek care. Do their terminal illnesses suddenly become non-terminal? Do their severe injuries from that head on collision suddenly vanish because the have coverage? Nope.
So because some folks choose to not seek care, we shouldn't provide health care to those who would seek care if they could afford it? That's just ridiculous.Gee what about those that didnt have insurance and got care? Punches a whole in that no insurance kills theory I think. And let's not forget those folks that have insurance and just never seek care. Do their terminal illnesses suddenly become non-terminal? Do their severe injuries from that head on collision suddenly vanish because the have coverage? Nope.
Originally Posted by Bujin:
All other advanced countries can manage health care, but we just don't have the will.....but of course, our system is better. Yeesh.
You still run with this line but never address the point I was actually trying to make. All other advanced countries can manage health care, but we just don't have the will.....but of course, our system is better. Yeesh.
I notice there's a lot of that going around.Originally Posted by Woof:
Gee what about those that didnt have insurance and got care? Punches a whole in that no insurance kills theory I think. And let's not forget those folks that have insurance and just never seek care. Do their terminal illnesses suddenly become non-terminal? Do their severe injuries from that head on collision suddenly vanish because the have coverage? Nope.
To use your words "if you didn't have insurance and thus didn't get early care, you very well could die." But anyone with an ounce of common sense also knows that if you DID have insurance and didn't get early care, you very well could still die.
ow about we try an experiment. Let's all go down to our respective ERs and see how many of the folks that die have insurance and how many that don't walk out. I'm gonna bet that you will find members of both.
It's clear you don't understand what population based studies do. They find results that are generalizable to populations. You can postulate lots of possible reasons, but the facts remain. In this population you had an increased risk of dying if you didn't have insurance. That's not opinion; that's what they found. Find an alternative reason for their results, or accept them. As was already stated, you either don't understand the basics of population research, or you are just being semantically juvenile. Or both, which is more likely.Gee what about those that didnt have insurance and got care? Punches a whole in that no insurance kills theory I think. And let's not forget those folks that have insurance and just never seek care. Do their terminal illnesses suddenly become non-terminal? Do their severe injuries from that head on collision suddenly vanish because the have coverage? Nope.
To use your words "if you didn't have insurance and thus didn't get early care, you very well could die." But anyone with an ounce of common sense also knows that if you DID have insurance and didn't get early care, you very well could still die.
ow about we try an experiment. Let's all go down to our respective ERs and see how many of the folks that die have insurance and how many that don't walk out. I'm gonna bet that you will find members of both.
Originally Posted by davidra:
It's clear you don't understand what population based studies do. They find results that are generalizable to populations. You can postulate lots of possible reasons, but the facts remain. In this population you had an increased risk of dying if you didn't have insurance. That's not opinion; that's what they found. Find an alternative reason for their results, or accept them. As was already stated, you either don't understand the basics of population research, or you are just being semantically juvenile. Or both, which is more likely.
Oh I understand just fine. I got an A in statistical analysis too. You can make data say whatever you want. Yippee. What you dont understand is that some of us dont want you to force us to pay for your fantasies, just because you think they're great. That's why we live in a free country. It's clear you don't understand what population based studies do. They find results that are generalizable to populations. You can postulate lots of possible reasons, but the facts remain. In this population you had an increased risk of dying if you didn't have insurance. That's not opinion; that's what they found. Find an alternative reason for their results, or accept them. As was already stated, you either don't understand the basics of population research, or you are just being semantically juvenile. Or both, which is more likely.
Funny how it's only semantics when you disagree. Do you play that game with your patients too? You said it just perfect yourself. See the bold. That doesnt say lack of insurance caused their deaths. Keep spewing your "we can save the world" crap.
Christian churches are teaching that the name "Barack Obama's" origin is literally "antichrist"?
First
...
15 65 105 110 111 112 113 114 115
116 117 118 119 120 125
...
Last
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
