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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

They're really serious about this "killing people" stuff, eh?

[Minimalist]

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

Sometimes you have to click on the link within the story if you want to get the backup.

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-...adults.pdf

Conclusions.
Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that
association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the
mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the
uninsured since that time. (
Am J Public Health.
2009;99:2289–2295. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2008.157685)

The American Journal of Public Health is not Breitbart....or FUX News.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The article seems to be saying that being uninsured is linked to mortality. I agree. The article concludes that around 45 000 deaths in the US annually are linked to the decedents not having adequate health insurance. Again, I agree. But neither of these address the claims of the OP, that repealing the ACA will result in 43 000 deaths per year. These claims regard one specific insurance scheme, not insurance generally.

Boru

[Minimalist]

If you agree that there is a link between being uninsured and mortality and you further agree that c 45,000 will die as a result of not having such insurance why is it such a leap to conclude that pulling health insurance from 25+ million people is not going to have dire consequences?

It is not as if the republicunts have a replacement in mind.

[Cato]

This is like arguing that the number of vehicles totaled would suddenly spike if we revoked everyone's auto insurance.

[Minimalist]

So, you think that if people did not have insurance they would be able to pay to repair severe accident damage by themselves?

[Aegon]

This is like arguing that the number of vehicles totaled would suddenly spike if we revoked everyone's auto insurance.

They'd occur at the same rate, probably, but they won't be able to afford the damages... if the damage is minimal enough they can continue driving, but will be at a greater risk of getting worse the more it is driven without being repaired and eventually (especially if another accident occurs) the car will be totaled or undrivable or, well, dead.

[brewer]

This thread started out comparing apples and oranges, now you're adding in bananas.

This is nuts.

[KUSA]

We all gonna die with or without aca. None of us gonna get out of here alive.

[Cyberman]

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever, or die trying. And I don't have aca.