It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by glevel
reply to post by uaocteaou
I think you are mistaken, the fact is they died because they chose to enter into a lifestyle that would not allow them to afford healthcare...as far as I can tell noone held a gun to their heads.
As for dreams...that is exactly what they are- dreams. Heck, I would love to spend the rest of my life roaming the mountains here in NW Arizona looking for gold...can I get free healthcare for that? Maybe someone will pay off the rest of my mortgage too, and maybe I can get some of those food stamps...yum!
You want free health care-fine. But stop using "poor me" propaganda to try to accomplish your mission,
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by uaocteaou
Over 50,000+ would die under ObamaCare.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
They would die waiting in line for surgery.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Many doctors have said they would quit and change
careers if ObamaCare passes.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The lines would get even longer!
If over loaded with too many patients a doctor on CNBC said
she could do it BUT it's like driving with only 1 hand.
Someone is going to get hurt.
Originally posted by calcoastseeker
So all the doctores will quit if it pases and become law?
They will do what they done to destroy every other occupation.
Import them.
Heck Cuba has a whole bunch of doctors down there.
Castro would be more than happy to send them here to help us out.
Most of those without insurance speak only Spanish anyway.
They want to destroy our way of life import more third world residents,kill off the home grown citizens(they bitch to much) and call what is left "Americans"
How many of those who died here without insurance should not have been here to begin with?
Please give us a break with the one sided surveys and polls.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang
The study shows a 40% increased risk of death for those who are uninsured. Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those of kidney disease and many other common killers.
Originally posted by harvib
These quotes highlight the problem with this "study":
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang
First off correlation does not imply causation. What this study found is that people who are more prone to a higher risk lifestyle are more likely to expire before those who exercise, eat right, and are mindful of their health.
I would wager that a greater number of those who smoke, drink, and don't exercise also don't have library cards as compared to those who don't drink, don't smoke, and do exercise. Therefore using this study's logic I would be accurate in stating that lack of a library card leads to an early death.
So the problem is that it uses statistics? Oooookay...
It's not a mere correlational study. It's a cox model - a complex regression model. I'm not sure you understand the data or study that well...
Originally posted by endisnighe
38,000 die from the flu each year.
How many die from lightening?
How many die from slipping in the tub?
How many die from falling ice from the # tanks of aircraft?
People die. Next question.
And it looks like we will have 40,000 threads of these on deaths caused by people that do not want to pay for someone elses healthcare.
[edit on 9/18/2009 by endisnighe]
Originally posted by harvib
No the problem is how the "study" uses the statistics.
Maybe you could enlighten me then.
And not having insurance leads to a 40% increased probability of death when controlling for all the other variables.