Repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people annually

[henryp]

I signed us up for a Pizza a day club for my family. Each pizza costs 100 dollars. I'd cancel, but then my kids would starve.

The problem with the ACA is that it didn't make healthcare affordable. It just shifted around who's making all the people in the healthcare racket rich. We're a relatively young, relatively healthy family of 3 that doesn't qualify for assistance, and we'd be paying just shy of our mortgage for a mediocre plan with a massive deductible. And the options would be buy that, or pay a large fine. And that's the deal. They squeeze thousands out of a bunch of families like mine by making us overpay for a lousy product, while protecting the companies making billions.

What we really need, if you believe healthcare is a right, is for the costs to be regulated. Medical supply companies, insurance providers, hospitals, probably some drug companies. Of course, who's going to do that, the government. It's a lousy system all around.

I'm a republican, but I think universal healthcare probably makes the most sense. At least there is a system that could, if a non awful person ever got a hold of it, could do something about it.
--

Everything said there also applies to Colleges.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Aye.

... and to finish his rant: "... until you're old enough to enlist!"

---

I signed us up for a Pizza a day club for my family.  Each pizza costs 100 dollars.  I'd cancel, but then my kids would starve.

The problem with the ACA is that it didn't make healthcare affordable.  It just shifted around who's making all the people in the healthcare racket rich.  We're a relatively young, relatively healthy family of 3 that doesn't qualify for assistance, and we'd be paying just shy of our mortgage for a mediocre plan with a massive deductible.  And the options would be buy that, or pay a large fine.  And that's the deal.  They squeeze thousands out of a bunch of families like mine by making us overpay for a lousy product, while protecting the companies making billions.  

What we really need, if you believe healthcare is a right, is for the costs to be regulated.  Medical supply companies, insurance providers, hospitals, probably some drug companies.  Of course, who's going to do that, the government.  It's a lousy system all around.  

I'm a republican, but I think universal healthcare probably makes the most sense.  At least there is a system that could, if a non awful person ever got a hold of it, could do something about it.
--

Everything said there also applies to Colleges.

I have always thought of ACA as a mandated shift of wealth from individuals to corporations, and sure would like to see single-payer if it were done right.

I write that as someone under the VA umbrella; hence the qualifier at the end. Believe me, I had to wait ten weeks to find out if my diseased hip was AVN or bone cancer. Ten weeks that, if it were cancer, could have seen me into the ground.

That ain't doing single-payer right.

[Jackalope]

Thump, it seems to me that the chances of getting a working single payer system out of the GOP Congress is indistinguishable from zero.

I expect they'll repeal and push the responsibility back to the states.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, it seems to me that the chances of getting a working single payer system out of the GOP Congress is indistinguishable from zero.

I expect they'll repeal and push the responsibility back to the states.

Oh, I know -- I'm blue-skying it, not fooling myself. They're so spiteful they're killing a program one of their own devised simply because Obama adopted it, tweaked it, and renamed it.

[Crossless2.0]

Thump, it seems to me that the chances of getting a working single payer system out of the GOP Congress is indistinguishable from zero.

I expect they'll repeal and push the responsibility back to the states.

Exactly. The same GOP-controlled states that are strapped for revenue. What could possibly go wrong?

[Cato]

Really?  That's what you got out of that article?

The conclusion:

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I disagree with Cato on a lot of things, but I have to go with him on this. The only way to authoritatively state that removing this insurance programme will kill 43 000 people per year would be to show proof that it has saved the lives of a comparable number, that is, people you can definitively demonstrate would have died without this insurance. If that were the case, one would think Mrs. Clinton would have been shouting it from the rooftops all throughout the campaign.

Don't get me wrong, though - this is NOT meant to be taken as support for insurance repeal, nor is it intended as a condemnation of government-provided (or at least sponsored) health care.

Boru

[Minimalist]

You know, Thump, it seems to me that they have plenty of money but they'd rather piss it away on contracts than on caring for the people who get maimed in their fucking wars.  Because, as we all know, modern warfare revolves around fucking pistols.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/...istol.html

Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service Pistol

The U.S. Army on Thursday awarded Sig Sauer a contract worth $580 million to make the next service pistol based on the company's P320 handgun.

BTW, Sig Sauer is a German-Swiss conglomerate.  So much for buying 'murrican eh, WLB?

[abaris]

I disagree with Cato on a lot of things, but I have to go with him on this.  The only way to authoritatively state that removing this insurance programme will kill 43 000 people per year would be to show proof that it has saved the lives of a comparable number, that is, people you can definitively demonstrate would have died without this insurance. If that were the case, one would think Mrs. Clinton would have been shouting it from the rooftops all throughout the campaign.

If you got no insurance, something as banal as a cold can kill you. Or a bad tooth, or the flu. I'm not entirely sure how many people are now insured that didn't get the chance before the ACA, but I don't think the number of 43.000 is too high. If everyone with preexisting conditions loses their insurance again, they will die, sooner rather than later.

The fact that life expectancy is lower in the US than in most, if not all, other western countries, is down to the simple fact that many people don't have access to needed medical treatments. Right now the US ranks at 31.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I disagree with Cato on a lot of things, but I have to go with him on this.  The only way to authoritatively state that removing this insurance programme will kill 43 000 people per year would be to show proof that it has saved the lives of a comparable number, that is, people you can definitively demonstrate would have died without this insurance. If that were the case, one would think Mrs. Clinton would have been shouting it from the rooftops all throughout the campaign.

If you got no insurance, something as banal as a cold can kill you. Or a bad tooth, or the flu. I'm not entirely sure how many people are now insured that didn't get the chance before the ACA, but I don't think the number of 43.000 is too high. If everyone with preexisting conditions loses their insurance again, they will die, sooner rather than later.

The fact that life expectancy is lower in the US than in most, if not all, other western countries, is down to the simple fact that many people don't have access to needed medical treatments.

I'm not saying that people without health insurance aren't at a greater risk of death (I'm ugly, not stupid). But to nail down a number as specific as 43 000 isn't supportable unless you know that a comparable number had their lives saved by this particular insurance scheme.

If this insurance is taken away - with nothing to replace it - people die will every year due to lack of insurance and health care services, no possible doubt of it. It may be six people, it may be 60 000. It may be 150 000. I just don't think it's actuarially reasonable to peg such a specific number.

Boru