Health Care Saves Lives, Lack of Coverage Contributes to Death
Among conservatives the view is that health care is so important that we don’t dare have the government give it to anyone because that might, through leaps of logic, lead to hypothetical future rationing. At the same time, even though health care’s important it’s rude to point out that America’s high uninsured rate kills people:
Lack of adequate health care may have contributed to the deaths of some 17,000 US children over the past two decades, according to a study released by the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.
The research, to be published Friday in the Journal of Public Health, was compiled from more than 23 million hospital records from 37 states between 1988 and 2005.
The study concluded that children without health insurance are far more likely to succumb to their illnesses than those with medical coverage.
Sadly, the life-and-death stakes for uninsured people don’t seem to move the hearts of centrist senators nearly as much as the plaintive cries of insurance company executives. Thus we continue to hear that people not only oppose creating a public option, they oppose such an option so vehemently that they would filibuster are large and multi-faceted health care bill merely in order to kill it.
35 Responses to “Health Care Saves Lives, Lack of Coverage Contributes to Death”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Let’s remember that, to left-wing philosophy majors, correlation means causation.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Technically, Matt was quoting a study by medical researchers, so I guess “to medical researchers, correlation means causation” and they need a good talkin’ to by right wing ideologues on how to praktiss skience & stuf.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
children without health insurance are far more likely to succumb to their illnesses than those with medical coverage.
Doesn’t SCHIP cover them?
October 30th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I swear to God, Matthew, if I see one more stethoscope lying around this blog…I’ll…I’ll…
Also, right on El Cid!
October 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Al’s got a point. It’s not like there’s any obvious connection between lack of medical care and dying children that would support a causal inference. In other news, researchers are still studying the hard-to-explain correlation between lack of food and starvation deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Doesn’t SCHIP cover them?
The study covers the past 20 years, and SCHIP only started in the late 1990’s. In addition, CHIP doesn’t cover all kids; the eligibility varies by state but generally, low income families above 100% federal poverty level(FPL) to 200% or 250% FPL, who are citizens or otherwise residing in the US legally. Some states (the ones you’d think, like Mississippi) have extremely burdensome additional requirements, and some states (the ones you’d think, like Florida and Alabama) have inept and/or completely ineffective CHIP programs.
All that said, there has been a very significant decrease in the number and rate of uninsured children since the inception of CHIP which has greatly improved the health status of eligible and covered American children. Urban Institute has some good research and program evaluation on the various state CHIP programs.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
[...] Health Care Saves Lives, Lack of Coverage Contributes to Death – Matt Yglesias [...]
October 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Here’s the basic worry: medicare and medicaid costs have been rising since the programs began. The promise to find “savings” in those programs to pay for this new thing is laughable:
– there’s no way Democrats will take steps that would torque off two key voting blocks, the elderly and the poor
– history demonstrates that it won’t happen. There’s been a bill to lower payments in those systems for years. Each year, like clockwork, the Congress votes to obviate that reduction. There’s no reason to believe that will change
Add to that the simple fact that we are now close to a $12T debt level, and projections have it rising to $20T before the end of the next decade. The health proposals will not bend the cost curve down; they’ll increase costs to the government in the same way that medicare and medicaid have (never mind what they’ll do to state govt budgets).
This kind of debt is affordable only if you assume that interest rates will remain low permanently. If you believe that, you’ll probably believe anything.
Whether government run/managed/whatever care is a good idea isn’t even relevant. What’s relevant is this: we cannot afford this, period.
And don’t bring up the fact that Bush and the Republicans ran debts, so “who am I to talk”. This isn’t a matter of “they had their turn, now it’s ours” – it’s a matter of rational governance.
You want to buy a huge health plan? Fine – find a few other things to not just cut, but eliminate outright. Closing down most of our overseas military commitments is one obvious choice, and one the left should even like. We can’t afford that, either.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Technically, Matt was quoting a study by medical researchers
Technically, Matthew was quoting from a newswire article about a study by medical researchers.
And, technically, the newswire article said that the lack of health insurance may contribute to excess deaths, whereas Matthew stated unequivocally that “Lack of Coverage Contributes to Death” or, in other words, “kills people”.
Technically.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:45 am
But James Robertson, Nancy has told the CBO that she would make all these cuts and efficiencies to save money!
Why she will save us sooooo much money that we just need to give health care to everybody free because then she can save even more money and before you know it We’re In The Black!
Even the dumbo Republicans knew they could spend us to prosperity! You see how well that worked don’t you?
October 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Robertson:
Here’s the basic worry: medicare and medicaid costs have been rising since the programs began. The promise to find “savings” in those programs to pay for this new thing is laughable:
There’s a complicated story behind this, just as the story about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac isn’t as cut and dry as conservatives make it out to be. You can learn the details after spending five minutes on the Internet.
Add to that the simple fact that we are now close to a $12T debt level, and projections have it rising to $20T before the end of the next decade. The health proposals will not bend the cost curve down;
Yeah we’re in debt because the government had to bail out the financial industry (the private sector) in order to save the global economy from implosion. Get that through your thick skull. Out health care system is more expensive and provides less bang for the buck than any other advanced country’s health care system. We fix it, we help fix the wider economy which it’s a drain on, and then we help the governments’ balance sheet.
You want to buy a huge health plan? Fine – find a few other things to not just cut, but eliminate outright. Closing down most of our overseas military commitments is one obvious choice, and one the left should even like. We can’t afford that, either.
Another isolationist like that fuckwad Pseudo.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:48 am
BTW, I love this line from the linked article:
Obama says his plans will cut in half runaway healthcare expenditures which, if unchecked, are forecast to gobble up one-fifth of US gross domestic product by 2013.
Obama’s plans will cut healthcare expenditures “in half”??? Really??? First, I’d like to see where Obama has said that, because (a) I don’t think Obama has said it and (b) it would be an outright lie if he did.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Technically, the article says plainly that “the study concluded that children without health insurance are far more likely to succumb to their illnesses than those with medical coverage.”
Technically, “succumb” means “die” here.
Technically, you can’t spell “fail” without “Al.”
October 30th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I’m hardly an isolationist – not wanting to maintain huge military bases all over is not the same thing by a longshot.
And why we’re in debt isn’t relevant; we are. Adding to that debt simply makes the existing problem worse, not better. Cheney and Pelosi have one huge thing in common: Neither believes that the debt matters; “This Time is Different”.
Google that phrase and find the book on that subject. We’re hardly the first delusional bunch heading down the road to ruin…
October 30th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Thus we continue to hear that people not only oppose creating a public option, they oppose such an option so vehemently that they would filibuster are large and multi-faceted health care bill merely in order to kill it.
Yet we’re lead to believe that this is not an important aspect of the health-care reform bill.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Matt, your failure to engage in discussion with your commentors has led to to a noticeable decline in the quality of your blog. I find much more engaging debate over at Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog, for example. I suggest you or TP take some time to reconsider your commenting and/or moderation policies.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Technically, the article says plainly that “the study concluded that children without health insurance are far more likely to succumb to their illnesses than those with medical coverage.”
Another left winger who doesn’t understand the difference between correlation and causation!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
dob:
Matt, your failure to engage in discussion with your commentors has led to to a noticeable decline in the quality of your blog.
I disagree. He does seem to blog about stuff commenters are talking about. Also I find this need for validation weird. Why do you need the blogger to “engage” with you?
October 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Matt, your failure to engage in discussion with your commentors has led to to a noticeable decline in the quality of your blog.
Matthew has never really engaged with his commenters, so how could that be a cause of a “decline”?
October 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Because his threads have become dominated by trolls and fools, and because every once in a while, substantive problems are actually raised about which it would be interesting to have a discussion. If Matt’s not going to participate in his comments section, I’d just as soon he not have one at all, ala TPM, as an unpoliced comments section reflects poorly on the blogger and hosting organization. Witness the horrible jokes being made by a troll about Palin yesterday.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
dob:
If Matt’s not going to participate in his comments section, I’d just as soon he not have one at all, ala TPM, as an unpoliced comments section reflects poorly on the blogger and hosting organization.
It depends what you want. I don’t think having an unpoliced comments section reflects poorly on the blogger or hosting organization. In fact I think it reflects well on them. If it became policed, it would quickly wither and die in my view. You need to become a little more tolerant and thick-skinned in my opinion. Politics ain’t beanbag as someone once said.
Besides if you want it to be like the TPM experience, just don’t read the comments.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Let’s remember that, to Al, sick children are worth a cheap shot and nothing else.
And why we’re in debt isn’t relevant; we are. Adding to that debt simply makes the existing problem worse, not better.
Longer J-Rob: my lack of concern over the cost of fighting unnecessary overseas wars should not be seen as hypocritical when juxtaposed with my concern over the cost of giving people affordable healthcare.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
@ dob, re: Sarah Palin thread
Oh I didn’t follow that thread yesterday, but I see what you’re saying now. Looks like some demented troll starting typing under other regular’s names. Pretty bad but that almost never happens. It’s very rare.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
#22 – learn to read. Which part of this:
was hard for you to understand? Or is it unpossible in your version of reality for a conservative to think that we are militarily over-extended?
October 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
James Robertson is right about one thing, he’s no isolationist. Hell, he’ll cheer for any war that kills brown people – and no need to provide a reason – he is glad to reach back to WWI for why Bush decided it was time to commit mass murder on the Iraqi people – there’s no reason to believe Jimmy the Killer (so long as the victims are far away and little Jimmy doesn’t have to physically get the blood on his hands) has any compunctions preventing him from inventing excuses for whatever other random slaying will be presented by the next empty suit the Republican Party presents for the Presidency.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:53 am
The comments are the best part about this blog. Without them, it’s not really worth reading. I could go read Washington Monthly’s blog and get less typos.
Also, Jimmy Robertson continues to spout his fucking worthless political opinions:
Blow me, asshole. You supported Bush and the Republicans for the past 8 years in these comment sections so you don’t get to say ‘don’t bring that up’, as if a) you set the parameters of debate and b) you actually gave a fuck about rational governance.
You not only don’t know shit about health care policy, but continue to lecture people who actually have educated themselves.
Your policy knowledge consists of twenty year old talking points. Get that weak shit outta here.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Since government run health insurance is more economical than private insurance, I guess we can’t afford private insurance either. Evidently, what you really mean to say is that soon, some politically feasible percentage of the population will have private insurance, and the rest of the people will just have to do without healthcare.
The truth is we are the least taxed industrialized nation in the world. We could easily afford to adopt a single payer healthcare system which would provide more benefit for less money. The ones complaining that there is no political will to adopt cost saving measures are the ones fighting against those cost saving measures.
Health care in the US has become the “remedy” to redistributive taxation. The government, the poor and the middle class get stuck overpaying, and the profits go to the wealthy.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Regarding the claim that we cannot “afford” health reform, I would suggest that you first obtain facts regarding the %% of the GDP that is going to the goverment now versus that %% while Reagan was President, or while Clinton was president during a time of a giant boom. You’ll find that the %% now is far smaller. So we can afford it.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Which part of this [snip] was hard for you to understand?
Well, you never explained just how you plan to go back in time and make those arguments over the past half-dozen years, and by doing so avoid being a giant fucking hypocrite.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@ dob, re: Sarah Palin thread
And reading through that unedifying thread it of course not surprsing to see Pseudo screaming for censorship against ideas he finds unpleasant and disturbing.
Dictatorial behavior is usually associated with the Right with their respect and adulation of authority.
But it has a long tradition on the left as well. See Lenin. And Stalin purged his army so bad that they had a tough time in Finland which probably encouraged Hitler to invade. And China where the Communists police the chat rooms for thoughtcrimes.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
At the risk of sounding insensitive, 850 children per year in a country this large seems like a fairly small number. Of course, I’m for universal coverage and driving the insurance companies into the sea, so one death per year of anyone due to lack of coverage is one too many, but really, wouldn’t you expect the figures to be much higher? Perhaps a lot of children get sicker and/or stay sick longer but don’t die, which is itself a tragedy.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Poptarts,
So you and pseudonymous in nc disagree about the war in Iraq. Do you have to bring this up on health care threads? And do you have to toss out random insults against him/her when he/she’s doing a nice job of deflating Al and J-Rob?
On health care, at least, you two are batting for the same team. Let’s deploy our abuse against the insensate hypocrites rather than against each other.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Andrew,
Those numbers do initially look low. Putting the focus on children is done for emotion evoking reasons. What is mentioned elsewhere in the thread, is that many children get medicaid or SCHIP, makes things look better than they are.
There are only 9 million or so uninsured children and 53 million insured children. With a general deathrate of 18/100k That works out to 11160 deaths. Subtracting the 850 excess deaths leaves 10310 deaths. Assuming 9/62nds of those deaths belong in our uninsured group naturally, that works out to just under 1500 deaths. That 850 excess death number means a 57% increase in the deathrate of those children.
Now, in order to reduce the correlation/causation confusion, it would be illuminating to compare these children to SCHIP recipients. SCHIP recipients would be poorer, and so should have an otherwise higher incidence of deaths which were correlated with, but not caused by a lack of insurance.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Because there’s an idiotic cap on the income taxed for those. Raise or outright eliminate that and **POOF** problem solved.
Let’s also take a look at what the GOP has done in terms of “fiscal responsibility” the past 40 years:
** $1.2 trillion in tax cuts
** $2 trillion war in Iraq (done off budget)
** $X trillion war in Afghanistan
** $? trillions due to two-thirds of American companies paying no taxes
** Tens of trillions lost due to Reagan cutting the top marginal rates nearly in half.
So, quite frankly, any conservative whining about the national debt can just shut the holy fuck up right now. The clowns you supported and/or hold up as saints are responsible for 70% of it.
Of course, there’s also the small fact that a robust public option would actually SAVE $100 billion over the next decade. But we all now the right’s aversion to reality.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Jason L.
On health care, at least, you two are batting for the same team. Let’s deploy our abuse against the insensate hypocrites rather than against each other.
We’re not batting on the same team and never will be. He’s batting on the asshole team who like to get personal with strangers over the Internet. Fuck that team and fuck him.