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

[vorlon13]

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

R'uh r'oh

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/healt....html?_r=0

[dyresand]

i wouldn't appeal the ACA i would however say get ride of the part of the ACA were its mandatory to have insurance or face a penalty.
If trump gives us single payer ironically fuck id attempt to do a back flip probably end up in the hospital with only co pay and other stuff and not
having to pay a arm and a leg insurance bill.

[Rev. Rye]

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

Yeah, the thing is auto insurance and health insurance are actually very different because of one thing: auto accidents happen in one go (Hell, they usually go from fine to totalled in less than a second), but health issues tend to linger for a longer time.

Health Insurance, in the case of many illnesses, can mean the difference between life, death, and spending the rest of your life in debt because someone had to pay for their cancer treatment; fans of Breaking Bad may notice that this last fact is why Walt turned to meth cooking after he was diagnosed with cancer. Americans may notice that the only thing unusual about that case is that Walt actually found a way to potentially pay for this treatment to prolong his life. In a real-world case, a young mother without health insurance is currently being forced to choose between a surgery to save her from being paralysed and ending up in crippling debt. In another case, a woman died of asthma; GODDAM ASTHMA, that she couldn't afford to treat. That said, the ACA doesn't cover everyone, but it does/did at least cover some people who didn't have healthcare before. I'm not sure of the exact number who'd die, but I can guarantee that there will be deaths that could have been prevented if that's gone and Trump doesn't put anything in its place.

Meanwhile, the universe does not give a shit whether you have the best auto insurance or no auto insurance whatsoever, the rain raineth on the just and unjust alike, and compared to examples like I gave above, could it do anything comparable?  Unless you decide to destroy your car for the insurance money, there is no cause and effect-relationship whatsoever with car wrecks and car insurance. It could either pay for repairs or pay part of the cost for a new car, as I know from personal experience.

[Pat Mustard]

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

Argument is invalid. The fact is that car insurance is there to protect others from the consequences of your actions, whereas health insurance is there to protect you from unforeseen health consequences you suffer.

[Cato]

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

No, and that's a separate issue and not consistent with the analogy. I said 'totaled'; similar to death. Without insurance people can ward off being 'totaled' by visiting the emergency room. People are not turned away because they don't have insurance. The argument is that people are not dying because they don't have insurance.

The point you raise is a fair consideration though. Although people aren't turned away for not having insurance, they will get billed. This is one of the many reasons the ACA should not be repealed unless it can be replaced. People with preexisting conditions would also apply; among several other reasons that are valid arguments. I just think we should let go of the scare tactic that people will die without insurance. It's unreasonable, particularly with the way the numbers are generated that go along with the argument.

We are all going to die, with or without insurance. It's a far better tactic to force the dialogue around quality of life, some aspects of healthcare as a right, the cost of healthcare and the ability to afford it.

[Tiberius]

The whole argument that as long as uninsured people have access to the ER they won't die suffers from fundamental misunderstandings of how health and healthcare works. The ER deals with curative / palliative care only, and usually only when the illness is serious. An uninsured person has to wait until they are seriously ill in order to go get medical treatment from the ER, and they still get billed for it.

What is more important to these people (and indeed most people) is preventative care, i.e. ensuring that they are healthy, and detecting problems before they become life-threatening. This is why you go to the doctor every year for a checkup (which you can only do if you have insurance), why you go to the doctor when some health issue occurs that you are concerned about (again, which you can only do if you have insurance).

While it may be true that the uninsured aren't just left to die, compare the likelihood of survival for a patient with cancer who has insurance and can therefore have it detected early and receive treatment, and a patient with cancer without insurance who has to wait until the cancer has consumed them before the ER can see them (and at that stage, I doubt very much if anything can be done).

[Autumnlicious]

The ER is only here to patch you up enough not to die immediately in the ER.

Once you're outside the ER, all bets are off.

There are a multitude of medical issues cheaply solved with doctor visits rather than expensive and ineffectual visits to the already overloaded ER.

[Aegon]

I found out today that I'm more or less a month away from Stage 5 CKD. I'll have to get dialysis treatments and file the paperwork to get on the transplant list. So, sorry if I don't approach this topic with pure logic; it's very personal to me.

[Amarok]

Indeed a proper medical system

1. prevents illness and medical problems

2. treats illness

3.and deals with long term care

Medicine is a life project not mere incidents

[brewer]

I found out today that I'm more or less a month away from Stage 5 CKD. I'll have to get dialysis treatments and file the paperwork to get on the transplant list. So, sorry if I don't approach this topic with pure logic; it's very personal to me.

You have my sympathies. Have your MD's talked to you about medicare eligibility for ESRD?

https://www.medicareresources.org/blog/2...-patients/