Institute of Medicine estimates 18,000 American's die from lack of health coverage

On January 14 the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a Congressionally chartered but independent organization created in 1970 "to serve as adviser to the nation to improve health," released a report and fact sheets asking the president and Congress to act so that everyone living in the U.S. has health insurance by 2010. The report assembles facts we all can use to make the case that the current system must and can be changed. For example:

*

Uninsured children and adults are sicker and die more often, as cancer and other diseases are diagnosed too late. Uninsured persons injured in an automobile accident get less services in hospitals and have a 37% higher death rate than those with health coverage. Lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the U.S. Currently, 43,000,000 Americans are uninsured.
*

The cost of the employee's share of health insurance increased 350% (in constant dollars) from 1977 to 1998, while the median income only increased 17%.
*

Four out of five uninsured Americans are members of working families. A quarter of U.S. workers are not offered health insurance at all by their employer. If they buy their own policy it usually costs much more than the same insurance purchased by a group, especially if they have a chronic health condition. If they do not have insurance and get sick, they usually have to pay much more for the same medical services, since insurance companies can negotiate discounts with doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and others.
*

Four out of five without health insurance in the U.S. are U.S. citizens -- although immigrants are more likely than others to be uninsured.
*

Of the 7.8 million uninsured children in the U.S. today, half are actually eligible for insurance under SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) or Medicaid. Often they are kept out by complex enrollment or re-enrollment procedures.
*

It would almost certainly cost less to provide insurance to everyone than to continue the current system. The cost of covering all the uninsured has been estimated as between 3% and 5.6% of total U.S. healthcare cost.
*

The U.S. spends more per person on health care than any other nation -- 14% of gross its domestic product -- but is 25th in male life expectancy and 19th in female life expectancy among 29 developed countries.

The report recommends five key principles for evaluating health insurance -- that it be universal, continuous, affordable to individuals and families, affordable and sustainable for society, and should "enhance health and well-being by promoting access to high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered, and equitable." It does not recommend a particular reform strategy, but evaluates four of them, including single payer, on how well they meet these recommendations.

"Imagine what the country would be like if everyone had coverage -- people would be financially able to have a health problem checked in a timely manner, to obtain preventive and primary care, and to receive necessary. appropriate and effective health services. Families would have security in knowing that they had some protection against medical bills undermining their financial stability. Key community providers and health care institutions could provide care to those who need it without jeopardizing their financial stability."

The new report, Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, is the last of a series of six IOM reports "that offers the most comprehensive examination to date of the consequences of lack of health insurance on individuals, their families, communities, and the whole society." Copies of all six are available at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=17632 or through: http://www.iom.edu

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2004/atn040101.html

Most of these are working citizens, not illegal immigrants or unemployed slackers, as some people *COUGHKIDROCKCOUGH* like to pretend.

The terrorist attacks of 2001, in contrast, killed around 3,000. Looks like insurance companies are the real deadliest enemies of the US.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2004/atn040101.html

Most of these are working citizens, not illegal immigrants or unemployed slackers, as some people *COUGHKIDROCKCOUGH* like to pretend.

The terrorist attacks of 2001, in contrast, killed around 3,000. Looks like insurance companies are the real deadliest enemies of the US.

While I agree with your point, thoroughly, your comments about KR are considered trolling.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2004/atn040101.html

Most of these are working citizens, not illegal immigrants or unemployed slackers, as some people *COUGHKIDROCKCOUGH* like to pretend.

The terrorist attacks of 2001, in contrast, killed around 3,000. Looks like insurance companies are the real deadliest enemies of the US.

Do you mean diseases, cause that would make more sense.

This is simply what they deserve. I don't understand how people can see it any other way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Insurance companies?

Do you mean diseases, cause that would make more sense.

His argument is an argument of murder by inaction. I think that has some sort of legal validity in some states.

It does. I just looked it up. It's called "duty to rescue".

Found something that's closer to home, for you, Bards.

http://www.123recht.net/Echte-Unterlassungsdelikte-__a739__p3.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
Insurance companies?

Do you mean diseases, cause that would make more sense.

The possibility of for-profit health insurance being criminalized in the united states is one of the reasons I still support the death penalty.

OK that's just a bit too vengeful...

Why? I have no problem with capital punishment as long as it's equitably applied to the people that cause the most harm to society.

I just think that saying that the death sentence should be maintained because of the chance health insurance executives could be executed, does not seem like reasonable motivation.

I mean, they may or may not deserve it, but that's not the kind of stuff laws should be based on.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why? I have no problem with capital punishment as long as it's equitably applied to the people that cause the most harm to society.

Which is sort of paradoxical, because death penalty cannot be applied nor will it even be applied fairly nor justly, not to mention without error.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Which is sort of paradoxical, because death penalty cannot be applied nor will it even be applied fairly nor justly, not to mention without error.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's not paradoxical at all. There's nothing inherent in the concept of death penalty that is unjust, erring, or unfair. All the problems are execution errors, not concept errors.

Wait, this is even funner.

You think there is nothing paradoxical about ''justice system'' killing people because they've killed/suspected of killing someone/pushed drugs.

In case you were unfamiliar with the history of justice system, we invented it so we wouldn't have to employ tribal like means of dealing with delinquent behaviour.

And in case you failed to read the post above (which you have) DJ argued that he is in favour of death penalty if distributed right.
It can NEVER be distributed right due to money distribution within society, institutionalized racism and range of other factors.

So please READ before comment.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You think there is nothing paradoxical about ''justice system'' killing people because they've killed/suspected of killing someone/pushed drugs.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In case you were unfamiliar with the history of justice system, we invented it so we wouldn't have to employ tribal like means of dealing with delinquent behaviour.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And in case you failed to read the post above (which you have) DJ argued that he is in favour of death penalty if distributed right.
It can NEVER be distributed right due to money distribution within society, institutionalized racism and range of other factors.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So please READ before comment.

Subject for another thread but my view is that the purpose of capital punishment is to relieve society of and punish people who are too dangerous to live. You know, serial rapists and murderers, corporate criminals, death profiteers, traitors, war criminals, cult leaders, and TV network executives.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That the punishment should be equal to the crime, is certainly one idea of justice. Pushing drugs, I would not have that be a death crime if I were in charge of things, but i'm not.

And evidently YOU are unfamiliar that the justice system has historically used the death sentence liberally in many countries. That nobody should ever be put to death, is a very recent phenomenon. All across the british empire people were hanged upon conviction of certain crimes.

I have read all the posts. I have already said, these things are not anything to do with the death penalty itself. If all you can say is that there could be problems in the execution of it, that speaks more of the justice system then it does of the death penalty. Your criticism is not a criticism of the system he mentioned, where it's fairly distributed, it's a criticism of how it's applied in the real world.

I have read everything, and everything you have said is nonsense. It's poor logic to think you can make ideal systems bad by mentioning applied systems.

I have a degree and MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice and I find it laughable that you should try and teach me anything about history of it.
It's offensive and embarrassing - for you.

Modern justice system you know today was born in France, although the ideas were taken from an Italian sociologist.
And the whole BASES of the system is that there will NOT be an eye for an eye.
Death penalty was viewed as barbaric and incomparable with the new justice system.

Before such there was NO modern type justice system in any country - it was a feudal/religious ''court'' rule that put people to death.
It was the whole reason for the creation of justice system, and thank the French, otherwise you'd still be chopping heads off for all kinds of offences.

Delinquent behaviour is a sociological phenomenon caused by range of factors not something that just happens because people are bastards.

And no, you have not read anything - you saw my post that was indicating lack of support for death penalty and you jumped in to type a stupid response.

If you have read the question, DO care to address it - what you wrote is ''bla bla bla death penalty is great!'' when in fact I have addressed EQUAL AND JUST DISTRIBUTION of death penalty.

Therefore, you may lack reading comperhantion.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Subject for another thread but my view is that the purpose of capital punishment is to relieve society of and punish people who are too dangerous to live. You know, serial rapists and murderers, [b]corporate criminals, death profiteers, traitors, war criminals, cult leaders, and TV network executives. [/B]

Those are that do the most damage and are least (statistically) persecuted. They cause more loss of life, theft and ruined lives than all blue collar crime put together.

You can whine and whine that what you were addressing was REAL LIFE APPLICATIONS of the death penalty, but it is obvious what you were saying was a reaction to Jello's post, which addressed no such matters.

Again, if you have nothing to say about problems in an IDEALIZED death penalty system, then nothing you say can in any way form a counterpoint to Jello or my post. Theory=/=practice.

I'd love to hear you hurl more insults at me for trying to show you the difference between actual practice and an idealized system, but we really should be getting back to healthcare here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
His argument is an argument of murder by inaction. I think that has some sort of legal validity in some states.

It does. I just looked it up. It's called "duty to rescue".

Found something that's closer to home, for you, Bards.

http://www.123recht.net/Echte-Unterlassungsdelikte-__a739__p3.html

Really, singling out insurance companies solely because they are already in the business of saving people (for profit) is silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That only applies amongst real persons not corporate entities, and even if we apply it to them, why only target insurance companies Wal Mart, McDonald's, Exxon, they have even more money and could easily save people. Or even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet...heck, you could probably save someone if you'd buy just a few less DVD's.

Really, singling out insurance companies solely because they are already in the business of saving people (for profit) is silly.

And, ever hear of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? awesome Good ol' Bill is nicer than you thought, eh?