RE: Repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people annually
January 24, 2017 at 6:44 pm
(January 23, 2017 at 11:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Really? That's what you got out of that article?
The conclusion:
Quote:No one knows with any certainty what the Republicans will do, or how many will die as a result. But Sanders’s suggestion that 36,000 would die is certainly well within the ballpark of scientific consensus on the likely impact of repeal of the ACA, and the notion of certain replacement — and the hope that a GOP replacement would be a serviceable remedy — are each far from certain, and looking worse every day.
The republicunts have wasted 7 years bitching about the ACA with no discernible plan to replace it. They do not give a flying fuck about people who cannot afford insurance and there is no reason to think that they will come up with a way now.
What do you think will happen when it is repealed?
I specifically stated that I don't support repealing ACA until it can be replaced with something better so I'll ignore your ending question. We all know that people will lose coverage.
My point is that trying to put a number around deaths caused by a drop in coverage is not the way to go about the argument. Even the conclusion states that nobody knows how many will die. The mistake the author makes is the declaration that the 36K figure is 'well within the ballpark of scientific consensus'. That is complete bullshit.
The numbers are based on comparing death rates in Massachusetts before and after that state's healthcare law. The reason this in no way approaches 'science' is that means of death or insurance coverage of the deceased were not known or analyzed on an individual level. Correlation is not causation. Without much imagination we could easily create a hefty list of causes of death that are not preventable simply because someone has insurance.
There's also the matter of extrapolating the number to the unknown figure of how many people gained new coverage. I've seen numbers ranging from 20M to 20.9M. Even if the Mass. numbers were accurate, how do we apply them to the reverse mechanism? I went without insurance for almost two years because of employment status and didn't die. That brings up another consideration. I can reasonably be counted in the 20M figure, but getting insurance had nothing to do with ACA, but rather gaining employment that offered insurance.
My main point is the number is easily refuted. There's plenty to argue about related to ACA and the threat of repeal without resorting to dubious and unfounded scare tactics. My secondary point is that it is damaging to those constantly castigating the other side as simple stupid rubes that are easy prey to misinformation to zealously demonstrate the same characteristic.
