A recent study is being touted as proof that “more than 44,000” * U.S. citizens per year die because they have no insurance. Sounds terrible, but rather than slurping down this so-called “scientific evidence” hook line and sinker (as “Dumbass Dougie” would do), I looked behind the scenes and analyzed their methodology. Lo and behold, I’m sensing either a liberal agenda (Hey, let’s create a bogus study that supports ObamaCare!?) or gross stupidity (third, remote possibility–they are trying to convince those without insurance to purchase private insurance). Could go either way.
First, I did not purchase the actual study, but the abstract of the study shows gross errors in judgment of those in charge of the study, IMHO. “After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.”
My question is, why adjust for anything? For instance, if the “uninsured” are more likely to be fat, or smokers, or lazy, or drunks, etc., why “adjust” for that? Wouldn’t that be important to know, as it would affect the conclusion of the study. In other words, instead of the conclusion “the uninsured were more likely to die than the insured”, a more proper conclusion might be “the uninsured are more likely to be obese lazy drunken smokers than the insured.” [Note: I’m not saying it is true, I’m saying why adjust anything? Just throw all the uninsured in and compare them with all the insured, that would give you the true results instead of doctored up results.]
And I see further evidence that the results of this study are being skewed to fit some political agenda, and/or those in charge of the study are guilty of gross stupidity. The Scientific American published this regarding the study: “The findings show that uninsured Americans—between the ages of 17 and 64—have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have private insurance. (Those enrolled in government insurance programs, such as Medicaid and Department of Veterans Affairs insurance, were excluded from the study.)” [Emphasis added.]
Those in charge of the study unilaterally removed recipients of Medicare and Medicaid and Veterans Affairs insurance from the study. Why? Those three programs are “insurance.” Why are they cherry picking who will be considered “insured”? Come on, people, if those marvelous Government run insurance programs work so well, include those recipients in the study. A more interesting study would be to see how the death rate compares between those programs along with SCHIP and those who have private insurance. If government run health insurance is so wonderful, it ought to meet or exceed the death rate for private insurance. Continue reading