The bogus death statistic that won’t die
The bogus death statistic that won’t die
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: Death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “DIE QUICKLY.” Next, he likened health insurance problems to a “Holocaust in America.” Now, he’s unveiled a new website entitled “namesofthedead.com” in memory of the “more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance.”
Just one problem: The statistic is a phantom number. Grayson’s memorial, like the Democrats’ government health care takeover plan itself, is full of vapor. It comes from a study published last December in the American Journal of Public Health. But the science is infused with left-wing politics.
Two of the co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which bills itself as the “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.
Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Dr. Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: “Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”
So, how did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants if they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Drs. Himmelstein, Woolhandler, and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.
At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:
“Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.” Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance – and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.
Another caveat you won’t see on Rep. Grayson’s memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that “earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7% and 11% of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample.”
To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as “uninsured” may not have even been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status. But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data, and voila: more than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance.
Next, the political doctors cooked up scary-specific death tolls for all 50 states (California – 5,302 Texas – 4,675!) Newspapers dutifully cited the fear-mongering factoids. The single-payer lobbying group co-founded by Drs. Himmelstein and Woolhandler took it from there. Last month, the group set up its own memorial on the National Mall for the phantom 44,000 casualties of uninsurance.
Dr. Himmelstein (who was also the driving force behind another flawed study tying medical debt to personal bankruptcies) eschewed scientific nuance and caveats to take to the airwaves and declare starkly that an American “dies every 12 minutes” because of lack of insurance. And now, Democrat Rep. Grayson has taken the monumentally dishonest concept online to solicit sob stories and put flesh on the weak bones of these dubious death numbers.
Where’s the White House health care “reality check” squad when you need it?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
31 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
151 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
So long, farewell, DLTDHYOTWO: Ben Nelson retires
December 27, 2011 02:05 PM by Michelle Malkin
96 Comments
Categories: Health care
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New Light
You beat me to it.
I was going to ask that in a later post!
Kudos!!
I have no expertise in the area under discussion, so I’m treading lightly here but essentially I’m wondering the same thing as Salt (quoted) above.
My hunch is that there are myriad factors that might have led to the premiums going up as opposed to going down in those states that enacted tort reform and until we investigate what those factors are and how they interrelate, it seems hard to be determinative right now (at least from where I’m sitting).
And to be fair to Chapoutier’s question, it should be a consideration on the table whether or not tort reform is as efficacious as it is said to be. But as I say, I’m wondering what other factors may be at play in those “guinea pig” states that have tort reform.
Also, I totally agree with the idea, though, that the LARGER question is the assumption of even more power over my life that would happen if the government steps in to aggressively “fix” the healthcare issue. At base, THIS is truly the issue that should be considered above important but less fundamental questions like tort reform.
I don’t do med mal law. I am a good attorney.
And I have said many times 1) there are other, better, reasons one can support tort reform independent from whether or not it lowers medical costs in any significant way and 2) I’d be more than happy to include tort reform in a package that actually did something to address health reform if it would appease the right.
Looking at only the health care premium is only looking at a small part of the picture. You also have to look at ALL other changes in legislation. Unlike auto insurance where you can get liability only (etc), with health care insurance, the government (at all levels) mandates to a much greater degree, what has to be covered, who has to be covered (such as dependent “children” to ages well into their 20′s), what forms must be filled out in order to show compliance in coverage, and all sorts of other things.
Legislative people never let an opportunity to by where they think they might be able to regulate something.
Folks,
I’ll ask again:
Other than the two examples I discussed above, how could docs “line their pockets” by ordering lots of expensive tests?
I’d welcome any ideas…I wouldn’t mind retiring ASAP!
Not only referral agreements between doctors, but also referrals to ambulatory centers that they themselves own a piece of. That is incredibly common.
I was merely suggesting that the idea conservatives see this as the only solution is false.
Are you suggesting that tort reform should not be part of the discussion? I haven’t read that from your earlier posts, but I might have misinterpreted.
Please disregard, Chap. I typed this while you were posting #829252
Grayson’s web site is screaming for some hilarious entries.
Self-referral had slipped my mind.
Thank you.
Any links that indicate how incredibly common it is?
Here’s one:
So according to this study, if one of the survet participants died when he drove his car into a brick wall or got shot in the head, they died NOT because he drove his car into a brick wall or got shot in the head, but because he (matbe) didn’t have health insurance?
The question of tort reform is simply demonizing layers instaed of insurance companies- same tactic only the name has changed. Some tort reform is long overdue but that is not going to be the answer to the health insurance question.
Individual health insurance savings accounts is the best idea I have heard so far.
Wait a second, how can you be a good attorney and alive at the same time? Is this a trick?
Just kidding Chap, my sister is also a “good attorney.”
…and portability & cafeteria options.
Same crap with cable/satellite tv.
How is a cafeteria option a good idea for a situation where, by definition, you DON’T know what is going to happen? In fact the more you know about the likelihood of something occurring, the less likely you will be able to get it covered.
So, getting run over by a truck is due to lack of health insurance?
Shot during a hold-up is due to lack of health insurance?
Drowning in your pool is due to lack of health insurance?
A building collapsing on you during an earthquake is due to lack of health insurance?
Where did these researchers get their training? Joe’s Autobody Repair and Statistical Research Shop?!
Thank you.
Yes, I’ve heard and read about that.
That ticks me off.
I’m in the wrong specialty…said with tongue firmly in cheek.
off topic….new school kid video praising dear leader…
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdSU2GkU4z
If you allow insurance companies to cross state lines the portability issue will take care of itself. I suppose you can strengthen the language.
The biggest problem I see is wanting to solve everything with one HUGE, widesweeping piece of legislation. Take one problem at a time, like portability, and fix it. Then move to the next. Just like in HAM radio, small moves make vast improvements.
chappy said
Could this be loosely taken as a oxymoron?
Well, they have to offset the cost of medical malpractice insurance somehow!
LOL!
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
Again, just because I have a constant slow leak in a tire I am going to go out and buy a new care? Christ, it is simple – look at the areas that need improvement and deal with those. What is going to happen is a complete meltdown of our Medical system as it stands today. One more nail in this countrys back, DOT Comm forst, Housing second this absurdity third – next is Knee Cap and trade on completely bogus science. When I saw what every living human being owes as a debt to the national debt – something like 300K and rising – this crap has got to stop.
You just have to remember that to liberals like chappy, they believe that it won’t affect them – just like the intellectuals in Mao’s and Stalin’s purges…
Little do they know that they’ll be first…
Your patients still have their feet?….
Define “health reform”
Something like: Doctors not having to do Defensive Medicine so as not to have a run in with an Ambulance Chaser?
???????
Granite,
I think he was referring to Obama telling people about doctors who amputated feet for big bucks – must be related to those who performed unnecessary tonsillectomies.
As for reducing health insurance costs. There are a number of ideas out there (including tort reform) that rely on the free market being allowed to work. Does anybody have any examples where this has not worked? As opposed to the numerous examples where government controls actually increased costs and reduced quality.
I think MSA’s, portability and for some States like here in California, Tort reform are excellent ideas.
One other thing I’d like added in to the Nat’l discussion is taking care of yourself as a pt. I’m not talking about accidents. I’m talking about Diabetes, Heart Disease. Someone said it earlier: you can always tell Americans, we are fatties.
When I came to California 25 years ago, I couldn’t believe the discussions at all levels of taking care of oneself. Exercise. Diet. Coping with Stress. People seemed younger than their ages and I was always amazed that peopler were older than they looked. It seems to be more of a niche-thing now.
Hey, if we get some form of Obamacare, we will need to be more proactive as pt’s: lose weight, don’t eat so much refined white sugar. Etc. Etc. Etc. Our quality of life WILL be better. We WILL live life longer.
I’m just sayin…since it’s a complex issue, this absolutely needs to be part of the mix.
Resurrection from the dead?
You’re supposed to be cutting off their feet to make money. How could you ignore that revenue stream?
I hope that Grayson keeps chirping long and loud, as he is a certifiable focking nutjob. Today he said that Republicans and Fox News are the enemies of our Country. Only thing missing is the tinfoil hat. This guy makes Dennis Kucinich look like Sean Hannity. I can see even the most hardcore lib wincing anytime this freak of nature opens his yap. I can imagine the Republican campaign ads already.
Aloha,
Maybe granite only sees referrals and the PCPs have already lopped them off.
And that’s part of the problem. Stop trying to appease people and focus on solutions that have a chance in hell of making things better instead of the the current strategy of focusing on non-solutions that are guaranteed to make things worse….all in the name of appeasing someone.
It boggles my mind when I see fellow conservatives focusing on social issues and even immigration when all of this pales in significance in comparison to the issue of tort reform. This is the number one issue that should be on everybody plate. The current tort system has allowed essentially talentless people like John Edwards to rob companies and individuals of their hard earned dollars and give it to avaricious trial lawyers and lazy people who spend most of their days drinking cheap wine and hoping for the big payout. The tort system is putting doctors out of businesses, preventing drug companies from making new products and the list is endless. So why are people wasting their precious resources on social issues when tort reform is so vastly more important?
They would have been better making up a number out of thin air. Based on the way the survey was run it would be impossible to come up with any meaningful data in this regard.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe, without tort reform, premiums may have risen by 50%? Of course not….you’re a lawyer. Why would you be for tort reform? You may not practice med mal today, but there’s always tomorrow.
Here’s a link detailing some effects of tort reform in Mississippi and Texas.
Gee…no! That never occurred to me!
Why the hell do you think I compared the rate to of growth in Texas and Cali to other states? It’s called a control.
On October 24th, 2009 at 7:16 am, chapoutier said:
A proper control in a proper scientific study would be to find a Texas in a parallel universe, and not do tort reform there over the years cited, and see how that turns out.
So, barring some major leap in quantum universe and time leaping, maybe we should stop arguing with collectivists on their own turf, the nature of their gilded cages, and start arguing the foundational issues instead, such as:
Is it a right and proper use of the power of the State to force people to pay for your health care?
Answer: No.
Chap is proving my point that arguing over tort reform, insurance company practices, etc., is a fool’s trap.
He – and most other liberals – would love all to be arguing the intricacies of tort reform, statistics, etc. Even if they can’t win the argument over the stats…
It makes you concede the ground that the State should be “doing something.”
Oh and xblade, that link you cite…what information is it missing? I’ll give you a minute.
Okay. Know the answer? ANY INFORMATION ON HOW MEDICAL COSTS HAVE COME DOWN!!!
Do you know why that information is missing? Because the costs haven’t. Between 2000-and 2009 Mississippi’s rates went up 101.9%. That is definitely on the high side of the average for the country. And I already talked about Texas.
I will, and have admitted that tort reform can bring down the price of malpractice insurance, which is really the only thing that article talked about. The problem is malpractice insurance is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of health care, between 1 and 2%. Even granting you favorable numbers (say malpracitice is actually 2% of costs and you could cut premiums by 40%) you think cutting 0.8% of costs is going to do anything?
I don’t see how there can be a war over stats when I am the only one that has provided any.
Medical costs come down in a Free Market. It’s the same with just about every cost – once the government gets involved costs will rise as a multiplier of inflation because everyone knows the “government” will pay for it – and the “government” has vastly deeper pockets than anyone and everyone else. It’s basic economics and anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t even need to be in the conversation!
With all due respect to Chap, he can’t have it both ways. He wants the US to embrace a European syle health care program where the government controls and runs health care. But he does not want to embrace the one positive thing about the way Europeans do health care. All of the European countries have their own version of tort reform. You don’t get jury trials in Europe when you bring a medcial malpractice lawsuit. That prevents the runaway juries that dole out millions of dollars in damages whenever a patient is not 100% satisfied with the doctor. The European court systems have trained judges who can interview their own independent medical experts to make a rational decision of whether the doctor’s treatment was below a reasonable standard of care. In the US, in contrast, the judges are often elected with the help of campaign contributions from wealthy trial lawyers. Judges in the US are often known as “homers”. That is, they go to the parties that the trial lawyers throw on holidays and they get nice goodies also. An out of town defense lawyer has no chance up against a local lawyer and a judge who has been bought off. And shysters like John Edwards can get up in front of a jury and talk about soaking the rich and the judge never says: “Stick to the evidence”.
In Europe none of this is allowed and you can get a rational judicial ruling.
I don’t understand why the Obama crowd wants to adopt the entire European health system EXCEPT for medical malpractice reform. Might it be bribery from the trial lawyers?
Naaaahhhh!!!
What were you thinking?!
On October 24th, 2009 at 10:21 am, Marc said:
We have GOT to STOP arguing with these monsters over the details of “health care reform.”
The State shouldn’t have a THING to do with health care AT ALL.
At one time, health insurance wasn’t even necessary. Only became “necessary” because of withholding taxes – forcing employers to find other ways to compensate employees PRE-TAX.
Stop arguing with them over the vagaries of how many people die from lack of health insurance, tort reform, blah blah.
When you do, you concede the point that IT’S THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR HEALTH CARE.
Notice that Chap would rather ignore this point then get off his train over statistics. Never fight collectivists on their own terrain.
So? We’re still talking savings. And like I said, tort reform is but one of several strategies that MUST be tried in order to effectively bring about true healthcare cost reductions.
See, you agree
Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas) had the best health care insurance in the world. And yet, he still died. How do Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler explain that?
Seeing as how these doctors are trying to “pull the wool over our eyes”, Dr. Steffie is aptly named, yes?
Um….did anyone notice that chap had NOT ONE WORD TO SAY about the topic of this thread, the bogus 44,000 statistic?
Nor will he say anything about government involvement in healthcare, and the results thus far. What about those unfunded Medicare liabilities, chap?
he claims to be a lawyer, but refuses to argue “on the merits” curious, eh?
As for tort reform being ONLY 1 to 2 % of health care costs, in a system that involves hundreds of billions of dollars each year, that adds up.
If I ran a million dollar business, and I found a way to cut my expenses by “only” 1 or 2%, would I pass it up?
Chap obviously works for the government or a non-profit, if he thinks numbers like that are inconsequential.
And of course chap fails to deal with the “things unseen”, which are the consequences and expenses of practicing CYA defensive medicine so as not to risk suit. Care to give us a stat measuring those, chap?
btw, chap: where does that % stat come from? Is it from a lawyer-funded group? You keep citing Texas. What makes the Texas experience “proof” of anything, except one state’s attempt to deal with the problem? You seem to be arguing that ssince Texas didn’t achieve the desired results, No one can.
BZZZTT!!
Well I’m a little dubious about the 1% to 2% figure. Obstetricians can spend over one THIRD of their pay on medical malpractice insurance premiums. On top of that, out of fear of being sued, they’ll perform a C section if the mother just looks a little cross-eyed and are hugely more expense than natural birth.
There’s a big chunk of insurance money just waiting out there. Trial lawyers like John Edwards think that it belongs to them and that the trial is just an annoying formality to get it. The insurance companies cannot be expected to fight very hard to defend the doctor when they can just keep raising premiums.
Though I like the European jury model where a jury of your peers can be more like the original concept of what ‘peer’ really means… the thing that really bugs me about US juries is the cherry picking. Who came up with all of that? Even preemptive challenge for example, why? (I get tossed out every time for being an engineer. Next time maybe I’ll beat them to it and wear a choo-choo charlie hat walking into the court room!)
Remember the OJ trial jury selection? That has to be the biggest embarrassment to American justice system of all time. WHO in their right mind actually WANTS to be on jury duty for a trial that could take months? If I was answering that OJ jury questionaire there are several tempting questions where it would have been easy to lie just to be excluded – how many in the pool did that? .. thus leaving a panel who either were extremely honest and met the criteria, (1 or 2 maybe?), too stupid to realize it could get them rejected or those who really wanted to be on the jury because “HEY, I’M GONNA BE FAMOUS!”.
People with health insurance die, too.
And aren’t there gub’mint programs already in place (medicare, medicaid, sChip, etc) that cover the indigent / under insured?
But this isn’t about health care reform - it’s about MORE POWER!
.
In the NY23 race, the Republican Party bosses met behind closed doors to select the candidate, DeDe the liberal RINO.
This is what happened during the last presidential election cycle…GOP bosses selected their candidate to run against the liberal. We found out what happens when the party runs a “less liberal” candidate than that of the Doomocrats. The most liberal gets elected.
Apparently, the GOP honchos didn’t learn their lesson very well, as they once again try to shove a liberal (R) down the throats of the NY Republicans, for numbers sake. I think “the party” has enough Collins’ and Snowe’s gumming up the works. Conservatives don’t need “mommy” candidates, we need strong conservative voices in office.
The party may only be successful if the real conservatives, like Hoffman, run separately (should they not get the national support from the GOP that they need.) Once enough conservatives get elected, a complete redressing of the party bosses can be undertaken, so the liberals and moderates esconched there can get exhorcised, and sent packing. Once that happens, conservatives can help bring the GOP back to the right where it belongs.
Holy god some of you are either dense or illiterate.
I did not bring up tort reform on this thread. I merely responded to someone else who did because it pains me to see this thrown around when there is zero evidence of it working to bring down health care costs.
Tort reform does NOT equal 1 or 2% savings. 1 to 2% represents the TOTAL cost of malpractice insurance. You cannot totally get rid of that, not even close. You can only eliminate a percentage of it. In Texas, that amounted to a 15% reduction. So we are talking about potentially eliminating a fraction of that 1 to 2%. Of course, I have said this several times. I don’t know why it would sink in this time. And again, tie after time, even when tort reform was instituted, insurance companies did not voluntarily lower their malpractice rates. The legislatures had to step in AGAIN to force them to.
Um…how hard is it to figure out that if so called “defensive medicine” costs were tied to risk of malpractice, that you would have actual data showing lower health care costs in states with such reform? Do you see that? No. I have given you example upon example. You have given me nothing to substantiate YOUR claim. Which leads to this gem.
You people seem to think that tort reform is this radical idea that is untested. About 30 states right now impose caps on non-economic damages in tort cases. Som, like California have had them for decades. Yet health care costs continue to skyrocket across every single state. How much more freaking proof is needed that tort reform does not work to reduce health care costs? Why has not one person here linked to a study showing that?
How many times on this very thread have I said I DO NOT oppose health care reform. Go back and count them. I have only said that it is an ineffective means to reduce health care costs.
I have argued many times on this board that the average lay person is not intelligent enough to identify true malpractice and have argued for just such a panel. Try again.
You sure do claim to know a lot about how the judicial system is run yet curiously ignore the fact that it is not “homer” judges that render verdicts in tort cases. It’s a jury.
I’m thinking that we might actually need libertarians in office, so when they inevitably compromise we’ll end up with conservative policies.
It is technically true that in the USA judicial system, a jury generally determines whether the doctor is at fault and if so how much money to dole out. But often, home town local yokel judges rig their rulings on evidence to ensure that the plaintiff’s attorney (guys like John Edwards) can introduce all sorts of imflammatory but irrelevant things into medmal trials. John Edwards, for example, spoke about how a dead girl “speaks through me”. Then Edwards would say “She is telling you…”. I tend to think Edwards is a fool but the guy is skilled in working up juries in some dusty forlorn town to
hate the doctor, hate the hospital and to take away their money and give it to him. Judges should crack down on traveling road shows that carnival barkers like John Edwards bring to courtrooms in dusty backwater towns. Yet these runaway juries can determine the fate of a doctor’s career or whether a hospital stays in business. And that is a shame. In Europe, this is impossible. The Europeans saw how ill equipped the average guy on a jury is to make a decision about medical care.
In my comment above I obviously meant how many times have I said I do not oppose TORT reform.
OK, chap:
Explain this:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Heres-your-demonstration-project-Mr-President—-its-called-Mississippi-59990137.html
Ummmm….
Tort reform has not done a thing to control health care costs. Mississippi’s premiums have increased 101.9%. Well above average in the country.
Of course, I have to yet again point out that I am asking for evidence that tort reform brings down HEALTH CARE costs, not MALPRACTICE INSURANCE costs. So what do you do? Cite an article that does not discuss health care costs savings one bit. Amazing.
Also apparently have to point out that I already specifically discussed Mississippi above.