BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Vic Smith

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:30:30 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:10:00 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you want to start analysing those 47000 deaths and find out how
many came in DOA from accidents, gunshots, drug ODs and other mayhem
we might even close that gap.

I'm sorry if you don't believe the Mayo Clinic's estimate.

I didn't deny the statistic. I only ask what is in it (how did these
people die) and point out it is statistically insignificant in the 2.4
million deaths annually anyway.
It is about the same outcome you have from the insured.

Saying being uninsured killed 47000 people means about as much as
saying living in California killed 257,000 people last year.

I think you need to look at the methodology..

Enlighten me. From what I can tell the 47k is simply the number of
people without insurance who died. Considering that those with the
most dangerous lifestyles are also the most likely to not have
insurance, I am not shocked at all.

Being out of a job or in a low-paying job is now a "dangerous
lifestyle?"
Here, be enlightened.
A fat slob smoker/drinker with insurance has better odds to survive
than a fat slob smoker/drinker without insurance.
And a slim non-smoker, non-drinker smoker with hypertension, diabetes,
or other undiagnosed ailments has less odds to survive than the same
who has insurance.
Though statistics usually lie in some fashion, common sense should be
allowed to kick in. This is hardly rocket science.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/bl...ured_hold.html

--Vic