wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:05:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:38:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:09:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

?? Most of this is total wacko stuff... but I guess you think 45K dead
every
year from lack of healthcare is ok.


That isn't really that bad.

2.381,264 died with health care!
Statistically they may actually be doing the best.

(total dead 2,426,264 source CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm


It's pretty bad. In fact, lowering costs includes removing some of the
things that cause the errors that contribute to that total.


You gave us a BS statistic. what is 47,000? the number of dead who
didn't have insurance? (that is a 42,000,000 pool if you believe the
current buzz)
If so the difference in outcome between them and the 2.23 million who
died with insurance is within the margin or error in numbers like
this.
The point is people die, with insurance or not. If medical insurance
only contributes a couple percent to your chances, it is vastly
overrated.
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..

--
Nom=de=Plume