Report: Thousands of Michigan residents could die in next decade due to lack of health coverage
Lack of health care coverage could lead to the deaths of about 7,600 Michigan residents in the next decade, according to a report from a consumer health group released Friday.
Michigan ranks 10th in terms of premature deaths that could occur in people between the ages of 25 and 64 statewide if national health care reform doesn't occur this year, the Families USA report concluded.
California is predicted to have the most deaths linked to health care access, with 34,600 adult deaths if reform is not enacted, the group said.
“Failure to pass health care reform—in effect, doing nothing to make health coverage and care affordable—results in a huge and terrible cost,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. “We can measure that cost in many important terms like escalating health care costs and unaffordable increases in premiums, but we should recognize the ultimate, inexcusable consequence—lost lives.
The link between health care coverage and premature death is related to the fact that the uninsured are less likely to have a usual source of care outside emergency room visits, they are less likely to get health screenings and preventative care, and they often delay medical care.
Families USA said it used methodology from the Institute of Medicine to determine national and state estimates.
The Michigan Department of Community Health does not calculate data directly related to premature deaths linked to access, said spokesman James McCurtis.
"I can't confirm the numbers Families USA used, but there is a link between people who have inadequate health care and untimely deaths," McCurtis said. "That's the reason why health care for everyone is needed."
Tina Reed covers health and the environment for AnnArbor.com. You can reach her at tinareed@annarbor.com, call her at 734-623-2535 or find her on Twitter @TreedinAA.
Comments
stunhsif
Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 9:26 p.m.
voiceofreason, I know that Briegel and Grinch being the bleeding hearts that they are would want you to give me 50% of the 800 bucks they are going to send you. So you better give me half of it, I demand it and it is my right as an American :-)???
voiceofreason
Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 8:30 p.m.
Grinch, If you and Briegel want to split the tab $400-$400, that would be acceptable. You guys are the greatest. I love when people are generous with their own money.
voiceofreason
Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 8:26 p.m.
Briegel, If I post my address, will you mail me a check to pay my $800 healthcare bill? Thanks a lot. I love when people are as compassionate as you are.
mike from saline
Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 12:48 a.m.
I meant "health care reform", and "pretend". Sorry about that. It's getting late.
mike from saline
Tue, Mar 9, 2010 : 12:38 a.m.
@graz, There is absolutly no "data" presented in this article proving the need for health care. You need to go back, and read it again. Even James McCurtis, a spokesman [over paid, public employee, drain on the economy] for the "Michigan department of community health", admits he "can't confirm the numbers "Families USA used. It's ALL opinion. The whole article. Don't try and pre- it's anything more. Case closed.
Hot Sam
Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:18 p.m.
""" Yeah, because private companies are so much more efficient and law-abiding (e.g., Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, GM, Chrysler, Bear Stearns, KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, Citi, Lehman Brothers, etc, etc, etc,......).""" NONE of these companies did what they did without the partnership of government. Free markets work when government enforces the rules fairly...in none of these cases did that occur...
mike from saline
Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 11:05 a.m.
This is not a "news story", this is an opinion piece, masquerading as a "news Story. A post by IIspier does a pretty thorough job of exposing "Families USA" as the left wing advocacy group they are, rather than some objective "consumer health group" [if IIspier's research is accurate, and I'm going to assume that it is]. My question for Tina Reed [AnnArbor.com staff member] is, if you were aware of this information, why didn't you include it in you're article? And if you were not aware, Why were you not aware? Oviously it couldn't have been that hard to find. I find suspect, any statement that begins with the words.."a recent study", unless the person, or persons, conducting the study can be proven to be reliably objective. It's been my experience that most studies begin with a hypothesis, and then [useing statistics] seek to prove it. where am I wrong here? It's also been my experience that you can tell alot about a "journilist", by, not only what they include in a story, but what they choose to leave out. Shame on you.
Graz
Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 6:10 a.m.
Holy smokes, there's a large amount of straw in here from all of these "strawmen arguments". Best comments are the one's that state "But thousands will die even WITH healthcare also!" Hehe, that's like saying "Why should I feed my kids when they'll probably just go out in the street and get run over" or "Why stop the drunk drivers when people will just get hit and killed by cars with bad accelerators". Instead of making specious arguments, opponents of healthcare reform need to make their arguments fact-based proving that "We have the best healthcare in the world" (we do...if you can afford it...historically we've had more resources to drive the research, but that's been changing) and by proving that "we can't afford to pay for it" when we've spent trillions on wars which we seem to be well able to pay for at any time. Prove these points and you will prove your argument. The data has been presented by healthcare reform proponents proving the need for reform, but there has been very little fact-based data presented by it's opponents. And the Rush/Beckism of "It's Socialism/ marxist/ commie" is almost as dishonest of an argument against as the ones I mentioned in the beginning of this comment. All societies, including this one, must adopt forms of socialism to survive and flourish. It's all around us in our daily lives.
FreedomLover
Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 4:16 a.m.
I pay for my own car insurance, house insurance, life insurance and part of my health insurance. Why should I expect the government to pay for my health insurance. Is there no personal responsiblity left in this country. Are we going to depend on the government to provide everything for us or are we going to work to provide for ourselves. The health care problem started when people began expecting someone else to pay for their insurance.
julieswhimsies
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 9:36 p.m.
I absolutely agree! Medicare (the "Public Option) works fine for me. I am on SSD with huge medical expenses. I recently fractured a vertebra at C3. (The same place Christopher Reed fractured his, and was paralyzed from the neck down. I was lucky. However, I spent time in the ER at UofM, plus four days hospital stay, and then 3 weeks of rehab at Glacier Hills. All of this was enormously expensive. I also carry Blue Cross Medigap. (who recently raised my rates 15%!) Whenever I've had a claim, Medicare covers it. Blue Cross, however, is the first to refuse a claim. They are disorganized and very difficult to deal with. My husband cannot afford health insurance, as he has his own business. My youngest...a college student has no coverage as well. I get SO worried about them! I've said it before and I will say it again. This country needs a Public Option badly, in addition to sweeping health care reform. CALL YOUR SENATORS! ASAP
jcj
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.
David Briegel I am disappointed that with your expertise an intelligent take on all subjects that you did not choose to help us poor uneducated fools out by running for governor! I will support health care reform when it addresses all the existing fraud instead of making more funds available for the thieves. That includes fraud by both the doctors and patients. The trouble is that too much of the time the politicians in power think they have all the answers for us poor uneducated fools. And try to ram bills through in the middle of the night. Lets do away with all lobbyist and make the politicians go back to their districts for town hall meetings to see what their constituents want. Your problem would appear to be selective vision! Is it possible for anyone that does not have YOUR view to have a legitimate view?
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 12:57 p.m.
Don't more people die from traffic accidents than lack of access to preventative medical care? The car companies could build tanks that completely protect us from injury. But they don't, because we can't afford them. Shouldn't, according to left-wing logic, the government step in and purchase tanks for each and every one of us? The problem with mandating perfect "fairness" is that the definition expands over time. Every time we add an entitlement, someone has to pay for it. Obama is proposing a budget that will approach $10 trillion in new debt per decade. Our economy would collapse fairly quickly under that pressure. And then health care will be the least of our worries.
The Grinch
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 10:08 a.m.
Fishnuts: My reply was to the person who thought, apparently, that a nation cannot be a republic and a democracy. We indeed live in a constitutional republic. We also live in a federal republic. We also live in a democratic republic. And we live (apparently) in an ever angrier, more selfish, and nastier republic.
David Briegel
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.
Just look at the headline, "Thousands of Mich residents could die in next decade due to lack of health coverage"! Notice how conservatives don't even address the potential future deaths of their fellow citizens. They would rather talk about the "isms" and not their fellow citizens! They would rather tell folks to leave the country than to talk about their fellow citizens. Civilized? Christian?
David Briegel
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
fishnuts, Rich Canadians come here because they can afford to. They could get more and better in India for less money. Just not too close. Wait till China starts to market their health care! Now answer this. Why do Americans go to Canada and Mexico for drugs? Because they are cheaper! Big Pharma hasn't rented their govts like they did the Bush Admin! Bill Tauzin? jcj, you should love those people on your list since they are just taking that corporate money that is buying better govt! Billy Tauzin? The Reagan/Bush not so Supreme Court just made bribery legal and you think it's free speech! Like I said before, when did we vote and decide that we should only provide insurance to govt employees and rich corporate emplyees? If we are the ones paying, why shouldn't all of our citizens get health care? They all get Interstate Highways, Postal Service, Amtrak, and our socialized military protects even the lunatics from the right wing!
stunhsif
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.
Grinch, We live in a "constitutional republic", look it up. What stellar school district did you go to? You are so leftist you make Obama look conservative. Why don't we just turn everything over to the state and put you in charge since all companies are evil. The margin of profit for insurance companies is quite low Mr. Grinch, less than 5%, why is that.. Oh, I know what you will say already. It is because they pay their CEO a Ga-Zillion dollars a year. And pink elephants fly!
The Grinch
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 5:05 a.m.
umrocks: we live in a democratic republic. And what stellar school system did you attend?
The Grinch
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 4:49 a.m.
"Yeah, let's turn our healthcare over to the state or federal gov't and it will be just as wonderful as renewing your license plates or drivers license at the Secretary of State. Give me a back flipping break!!!!" Yeah, because private companies are so much more efficient and law-abiding (e.g., Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, GM, Chrysler, Bear Stearns, KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, Citi, Lehman Brothers, etc, etc, etc,......). No, I'd much rather have a health care system run by for-profit insurance companies whose first responsibility, whose fiduciary responsibility, is to maximize profits for their shareholders, and the primary means of so doing is to jack up rates while denying coverage. Yeah, that makes sense... in an Alice Through the Looking-Glass sort of way.
The Grinch
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 4:14 a.m.
As per usual, fishnuts, you have less than half the story: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2514581 Or, like your claiming to vote in numerous communities, are you once again just fudging the truth?
stunhsif
Sun, Mar 7, 2010 : 12:24 a.m.
umrocks and snapshot, you guys rock!!! David and Grinch, since you guys are so in bed together answer me this question. If our healthcare is so horrible why did Mr. Danny Williams, The Premier of Newfoundland come to the USA for cardiac surgery less than one month ago? Here is the answer. Dr. Wilbert Koen a retired heart surgeon and professor at the Univ of Ottawa ( in Canada so you know )said, "Newfoundland does not have the specific pumps and post-op technical support to allow all advanced complicated procedures to be performed there". Like usual, too many people eating too much "who hash" or hanging out at the diag too much! Yeah, let's turn our healthcare over to the state or federal gov't and it will be just as wonderful as renewing your license plates or drivers license at the Secretary of State. Give me a back flipping break!!!!
umrocks
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 11:39 p.m.
(walker101 said): "You are worried about an autocratic take over. Read YOUR history. We are still a strong and virbrant DEMOCRACY." Dude, you must be another sad, uneducated product of our public school system. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Idiot. Why don't you read the Federalist Papers, or anything else written before 1890 when the Progressives started moving us away from the Constitution.
John Q
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 11:39 p.m.
For our Canadian bashing friends here, please answer the following: 1. How many Canadians can't afford health care because they are denied health care insurance due to a pre-existing condition? 2. How many Canadians were denied a health care procedure because their health insurance company denied it? 3. How many Canadian women are charged higher health insurance rates than men with comparable coverage? Compare those numbers to the same numbers for US citizens using the US health care system with US health insurance coverage. Then explain why the Canadian system is so lousy compared to the US system.
The Grinch
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 11:20 p.m.
Good one, Fishnuts. You don't like someone's opinion so you tell them to leave the country. The last resort of someone who can't deal with an argument on an intellectual level. Brilliant!
Basic Bob
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 9:49 p.m.
"If the dopeheads, alcoholics and smokers would stop doing what they're doing, the problem would be solved." - You mean they should stop running for congress?
stunhsif
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 9:30 p.m.
@David and Andy, You don't like it here, move to Cuba or Costa Rica since you say they have better healthcare.
NameIDidntWant
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 9 p.m.
I dont think you all should have to pay for my health insurance. I dont think ANYBODY should have insurance AT ALL. Especially lawmakers! All you people whining about your costs should try living with no insurance for the next 10 years. This country is so fraking backwards it makes me sick. If you are dirt poor- FREE AWSOME HEALTHCARE! If you are from a wealthy family you had a good support community, went to a good school and got a good job where some mammoth employer pays your premiums as part of your compensation which is essentially FREE AWSOME HEALTH CARE! Then there are people like me, who work their backsides off 60 or 70 hours a week trying to carve out a living ourselves and maybe employ a few other people along the way. BECAUSE Im self employed, I pay more taxes than most people. And do you know what my insurance company wants to charge me a month now for family coverage? $843. For crappy insurance that doesnt cover anything! You people with the cushy employer coverage wont be whining about those of us that arent lucky enough to have your coverage for long, cuz well be dying off because we didnt get a blood test that our massively over-priced insurance didnt cover and YOU will be accomplices to our MURDER! As always in this country, the working man takes it in the rear and the profiteers take it to the bank while they blind the well to do with propaganda. Its time to burn the whole thing down and start over.
jcj
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 8:32 p.m.
David Briegel Anyone that is ignorant enough to believe that the Oblabla administration is any less corrupt that of previous administrations. These persons are not only fools they are hypocrites. Not willing to admit they have a double standard. I would call for all proven corrupt members of congress to be ousted. But you would only call for the republicans heads. That's is like a teenage groupie! A lot more transparent than Oblabla's administration! Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington was once characterized as a liberal group on a witch hunt to oust then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Not anymore! The Washington watchdog group released its list of what it called the most corrupt members of Congress and Democrats, who now control both chambers of Congress, comprise the majority. * Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) * Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) * Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) * Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) * Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) * Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) * Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) * Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) * Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) * Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) * Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) * Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) * Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN) * Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) * Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Looks like a toss up to me!!
clara
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 7:34 p.m.
Organized medicine has expressed outrage over the (21.2%)reimbursement reduction which took effect 3-1-10, arguing that it will force physicians to turn away Medicare patients and military families, whose coverage under TRICARE is based on Medicare rates.
Soothslayer
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 7:30 p.m.
@David Briegel Right on brother! We are NOT better or more deserving of quality healthcare than anyone else on this planet. Look at the sheer entitlement (self) portended to these simps ITT!! Conservatives - help and assist people they KNOW. Liberals - help and assist peope in NEED. Not on my watch all you haters. Quality healthcare for EVERYONE (no not just you and your friends who "work hard" making money off the backs of others). /thread
clara
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 7:24 p.m.
FamiliesUSA seems to be quite an interesting group. They call themselves: a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans (which easily translates into biased). They: Manage a grassroots advocates' network of organizations and individuals Families USA Board of Directors include: Jarrett Barrios of GLAAD, Bob Edgar of Common Cause and Mary Kay Henry of the SEIU. Their study is based on the assumption that uninsured people have a 25% higher mortality rate but they provide no facts to back this up. All they did is use the 1.25 figure an plug it into the current mortality rates. They did not correct for the loose of doctors due to Medicare cuts, or the likely rationing due to the additional patients under Medicare with no additional doctors. Any chance that annarbor.com would wait for at least one other verifying study before publishing this unsubstantiated drivel?
Macabre Sunset
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 6:58 p.m.
Yes, I do think a certain measure of preventative care should be included in a good health insurance plan. One proposal I've read is a plan that allows people two doctor visits per year with a low co-pay, with suggestions made for appropriate preventative care. This gives healthy people the opportunity and incentive to seek out preventative care, as well as giving them a certain responsibility and measure of control. Is it wrong to want real health-care reform, instead of ObamaCare? What I'd like to see is affordable insurance with reasonable co-pays. People have access to doctors, but a responsibility to pay their own bills, or a reasonable percentage of their bills for those truly in need. I'd like to see the end of the connection between work and health insurance. This will give companies incentive to hire people. I'd like to see tort reform, so that John Edwards can't make something up and sue you for it. I'd like to see real competition in the health insurance market, regulated fairly rather than by lobbyist demands. I'd like to see drug companies encouraged to undertake new research but prohibited from advertising medicines that can only be dispersed by doctors. Yes, that's a lot. And a fundamental reform of health care in America. But I don't think it's possible to make this effective and affordable without real reform. Obama simply wants the middle class to pay for everyone else's health care.
snapshot
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:57 p.m.
Stay away from doctors, they'll kill you. But then, why do all those folks for whom money is no object come from other countries come to the US for their operations? Regarding hospital infections....Does anyone else thing it strange that 200 years after hand washing was discovered to help prevent infections and the spread of disease that there is now an "educational" program in place in hospitals that encourages hand washing of healthcare workers?
Thick Candy Shell
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:56 p.m.
I love the communist Ann Arborites! The Gov. owes people health care. The Gov. owes people a house. The Gov. owes people a car. The Gov. owes people a 4 star hotel when they go on vacation. The Gov. owes people a full retirement with no work history. The Gov. owes people everything. Sorry, not going to that. And "David Briegel" yes, that is Marxism...make your people dependent on the Gov so they can not get rid of the gov!
Thick Candy Shell
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:43 p.m.
@gavsulaker, the problem is that people with insurance go to see the doc for everything. That drives cost up also. If you give an incentive to keep costs down that will help, but there is always a problem with certain issues. The problem with both the senate and house bill is that they do not promote preventative health care. Instead, they reduce payments to primary care physicians which in turn reduces the numbe of Docs that will accept gov insurance and will reduce the number of people who can get primary care.
Seth H.
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:42 p.m.
Is there going to be a follow-up story that researches the effects that a nation's bankruptcy has on its citizenry? Thanks!
David Briegel
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.
You are foolish to think we have the best health care in the world. Far, FAR from it. 42nd despite spending twice as much. You think we're the best? Try it without health insurance! 34th in infant mortality and those were the WANTED Fetuses! behind Cuba and Costa Rica. Wow! Isn't that impressive? The citizens of this country buy the health insurance for those fortunate enough to be insured either through our taxes or the cost of goods and services we purchase. Who decided those few were the only ones who should be insured? Did we vote on that?? What is so free about this scenario?? What is 100 million a week when you can afford to pay your CEO a billion dollars? The biggest ponzi scheme ever created was to take premiums from people, deny them the care they paid for and reap huge profits! Does anyone even know the meaning of fiduciary responsibility? Free market, indeed! The "gov't" doesn't bankrupt America, rented politicians DO! The last 20 years of Republican Presidents and not one single balanced budget! The Insurance companies have rented most of the Republicans and half the Dems. The blue dogs and Bart Stupak and his phony fools! And now the fools have gone from alleging Socialism to Communism, to Marxism to Neo-Marxism as though they even know the meaning of the foolish lies they are spreading. You can disregard the comments and opinions of anyone foolish enough to believe these ignorant lies and liars!! Anyone foolish enough to believe Obama and his Admin fall into these categories displays a complete lack of inteligence. Our govt is becoming corporatist at best and fascist at worst but agreeably corrupt! Civilized and Christian? Right!
vamoose
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.
We cannot afford NOT to have universal health insurance. The costs of our present broken system from premature deaths, personal bankruptcies, and lost work time is staggering. How come every other developed free market democracy on this planet has found a way to provide some kind of universal health insurance, and we haven't? If the systems in other countries are as lousy as the pundits on the far right claim, it seems obvious that they should have poorer child mortality and shorter life expectancy than the US. And our "superior" system should cost less per person. But we spend far more than anyone else to get results that only a third world country would be proud of. It is noteworthy that the CONSERVATIVE political parties in Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Japan, France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and the UK all strongly support retaining their national health insurance plans How come when Richard Nixon proposed a national health insurance plan more progressive than Obama's back in 1974 nobody called him a socialist?
gr8
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:34 p.m.
Taxpayers in Michigan will pay $18.7 billion for Total Defense Spending in FY2010. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided: 7,037,020 People with Health Care for One Year Our priorities suck
fortin911
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:07 p.m.
Our legislature and Governor should be looking out for all those citizens that have made this state what it is today. If we loose a few fellons at our state prison to save decent people in their last years of life let it happen!
gavsulaker
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 5:01 p.m.
Whenever I see an article related to health care for more people, I prepare to laugh as the onslaught of negativity ensues. I think the point the article was suggesting was that if more people had health care there would be more PREVENTATIVE medical care people could receive. That means more regular check-ups, or even going to doctor if someone is really sick/doesn't feel normal. Then doctors could detect problems SOONER than later (before it's too late or too costly) for the patient. I am not an economist or know the prices of one precedure to another, but I would reckon it's much more cost effective for preventative care as oppossed to the cost of treating someone with a disease/ailment. Patients without insurance tend to "wait too long" to seek care for their problems, but by the time they do have to go to a hospital, the cost ends up crippling their family financially anyways. And there is hospital's end of the bargain. A hospital cannot refuse to treat anyone, so I would say they too would face less financial losses if more people had health care as oppossed to being unpaid by people who just cannot afford it. But, you know...Love your neighbor as yourself...as long as it doesn't cost too much.
larry
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 4:40 p.m.
Perhaps if Governor Granholm had CUT taxes a few years ago (instead of increasing them) to help businesses, there would be more people employed in Michigan, with full health-care coverage. Instead, Michigan is now the most economically depressed state in the country. For example, corporations such as Pfizer and Comerica opted to move out of the state to consolidate in lower-tax regions, taking thousands of jobs out of Michigan. Harsh as it may sound, more government (and increased spending & taxes) is not the long-term answer. Supporting the productive business sector that creates REAL economic wealth and jobs is the only permanent solution. An economy with a greater proportion of thriving businesses will create more economic wealth and jobs than one in which the relatively inefficient government "sector" dominates and stifles everyone else.
superliberal
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 4:37 p.m.
37 best is not the best.
llspier
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 4:27 p.m.
Families USA is part of a coalition of "progressive" organizations called Progressive States Network, funded by MoveOn, George Soros and the like. From 'Discover The Networks: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7339 Quote: "PSN operates a "Progressive States Taskforce" that works "to provide support to state campaigns seeking to enact [progressive] policies into law." Task force members include representatives from: the AFL-CIO; ACORN; AFSCME; Americans for Health Care; Apollo Alliance; the Center for American Progress; the Center for Policy Alternatives; the Economic Policy Institute; Families USA; Free Press; the JR Commons Center; the Labor Project on Working Families; Mobility Agenda - Center for Community Change; Moms Rising; the Multi-States Working Families Consortium; the National Conference of Environmental Legislators; the National Employment Law Project; the National Partnership for Women & Families; Northeast Action; People for the American Way; Public Campaign; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sierra Club; Skyline Public Works; Smart Growth America; the State Environmental Leadership Program; the UC-Berkeley Center for Labor Research; the Universal Health Care Action Network; and the Vote by Mail Project. Members of PSN's Board of Directors include: Wes Boyd, President of MoveOn; David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters for America; Texas Representative Garnet Coleman; New York Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat; Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers Union; Ellen Golombek, President of the SEIU-sponsored Americans for Health Care; Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Political Director for Skyline Public Works; former Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Hoeffel; Executive Director of ACORN, Steve Kest; UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff; the 2006 Democratic nominee for Connecticut's U.S. Senate seat, Ned Lamont; Founder and President of Free Press, Robert McChesney; Maine Representative Hannah Pingree; President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, John Podesta; Executive Assistant to the President of AFSCME, Lee Saunders; Naomi Walker, State Legislative Issues Coordinator for the AFL-CIO; Minnesota Representative Neva Walker; and Vermont Representative David Zuckerman. PSN is a member organization of the Moving Ideas Network (MIN), a coalition of more than 250 leftwing activist organizations working in to develop and disseminate progressive policy and advocacy recommendations." Now, many of you may not have a problem with being identified as 'progressives'. Most of American, once they see that 'progressive' means Marxist, want nothing to do with this. And, looking at the huge union effort behind these organizations, its pretty hard NOT to identify them as Marxist. This bunch wants universal health care simply to strengthen their hold on the US government, the economy and the American people. Health care 'their way' certainly wont cut any cost-because they all intend to get a RAISE! This isnt about health care, its about control! And, if you insist on being sucked in, at least admit what is sucking you in. Its Marxism...tried and found seriously, dangerously wanting.
rwshas
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.
Nice headlines. It's so typical of the mainstream news. A Minister of Canada just came over to our Country for health care. Yet our liberals think they have the better system. Do we really what to go to an Secretary of State's office for our health care too?? Grow up..
Awakened
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.
I've sen the health care industry keep people from dying pre-maturely by prescribing medications and treatments to keep them alive and miserable until their money runs out. Then off to the nursing home to wait to die. I'll choose "pre-mature" and keep having fun 'til the end. Good luck to the rest of you. You won't be far behind me.
Moose
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.
@bill, that's because most of those wing nut comments including yours don't come from people who actually live in Ann Arbor
BornNRaised
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.
Intersting to hear that there should be competition in the medical field when some would then say there shouldn't be such a profit for doctors. Well, in a competitive market, what draws the best people. Be sure you know what you're asking for folks... because that causes an increase in cost.
mmggttnn
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 3:16 p.m.
If the dopeheads, alcoholics and smokers would stop doing what they're doing, the problem would be solved.
mmggttnn
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
Hey Socialist Obama, the taxpayers in this country don't want it. One trillion dollars further in debt to insure 31 million people? You've got to be kidding. Obviously, there's a better, less costly way. Figure it out Obama.
bill
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.
Very interesting. Even in liberal Ann Arbor most comments are against obama care, and he keeps saying the American public wants his plan and a pig can fly too.
Thick Candy Shell
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.
@Andy Jacobs, yes, you are of course right. An individual who spends well over $100,000 for there schooling and 10 years of their life to become a Doctor should never make a profit! Oh, wait, we are not yet it the United Socialist States of America. The reason we have the best system is because we have the free market. The reason we don't show the result is that we as Americans are the laziest, fattest group of people on the planet. If we could get away from American Idol, Survivor and the rest we would see unbelievable results. The fact still remains, we have the highest rates of Cancer survival, long term adult onset Diabetes survival and many others. We will not be able to improve results with people who have grown up with the entitlement mindset because they don't get up and do anything. My Grandparents ate food that would be considered absolutely terrible, yet they all lived into there 90's, one to 101. They worked everyday and had no problems. The countries that show better results than the U.S.A. all have the same thing in common...They work hard.
DiscoStu
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 2:21 p.m.
Hey Alpha Alpha, why don't you state a credible case rather than throw out your tired conservative mantras. So you believe competition will reduce cost? How about specific examples? I hope you don't think further deregulation is the answer, because when we offered it to the banks and the airlines, it sure didn't have these remarkable money saving results you speak of (Example, Airlines were deregulated under the belief that private companies could offer the service at a lower cost; result is ticket prices spiraling up at a ridiculous rate. Banks have regulations taken away and begin dealing in markets they are not designed to deal with and trading insurance of insurance of bogus realty deals and bring this country to its knees). You are worried about an autocratic take over. Read YOUR history. We are still a strong and virbrant DEMOCRACY. These governments you speak of used communism and socialism as a smoke screen to become an AUTOCRACY. And it wasn't all just sweeping legislation, there was high profile disappearances and murders along with the systematic elimination of the educated class. I would love a link to the article that shows ANY party member guilty of this. You believe our country will be bankrupt. Well, we already could be. Here's an analogy: when looking to invest in a company, Warren Buffet looked at their business model and balance sheet. By looking at these he could determine if the company had a good plan for the future and if there balance sheet checked out. Well, currently we can not balance our budget, and we have a group of people in congress who made it clear from the beginning of Obama's term that the number one goal is to see him fail. What we fail to notice across the board is this is at OUR expense. So no good direction for the future and a bad bad balance sheet. We are already there sir, time to work on ways of climbing out of this mess (and yes, healthcare reform as it stands is one of those ways). Look, here is a brief argument for bigger government, since no one has actually shrunk it in recent history (useful slogan if you have no intention of following it, right?): Private companies answer to share holders who only demand financial results, Government answers to the people who want real life results. If government retakes some control and regulates the industries that should provide for people's needs (i.e. Transportation, Healthcare, Bank Savings- just to name a few) then ultimately we are in control. If we leave it to private companies, as we have, I would say that that would usher in more of the same.
walker101
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 1:58 p.m.
Thousands will die with private insurance, it's all part of our life cycle.
walker101
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.
The Federal government is continuing to bankrupt our country, all these agencies created and another 82 just to manage this Health Care Plan will make all these agencies look like gold in comparison. With the exception of the IRS all the others would have bankrupted private business years ago. They have not budgets, incompetent management, employees that know they cannot be terminated or layed off if they make errors and costly mistakes, for the most part they are out of control, no accountability. And now you want them to take over our Health Plan, what makes you think that they can even consider running a plan they have no clue of, jsut look at the VA. They'll hire corrupt zars, just like Obama has done within his cabinet, inept personnel to help run the agency,try calling for information in any agency and see what kind of run around you'll get. I know because I' am a Federal Employee.
AlphaAlpha
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.
Families USA: Lobby group. Why was this key fact unmentioned?
Soothslayer
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 1:42 p.m.
A Brief History of the crazy US Socialist Plot: 1790-Public Schools, 1808-Public Water & Sewer, 1842-Public Highways, 1905-Public Parks, not to mention police and fire services. There shouldn't be ANY profit made off of someone getting ill or needing maintenance healthcare. Funds all go to innovate and support best practice medicine and NOT in the pockets of shareholders.
Macabre Sunset
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.
The health insurance industry is lobbying furiously in favor of this bill. This is their plan. There are aspects of it, like unfunded requirements to insure existing conditions, they are lobbying against. But the shell of it for now restricts competition and expands their customer base. If it passes, they will celebrate with billion-dollar bonuses for all executives. ObamaCare is loosely modeled on the Massachusetts plan (RomneyCare). Problem is, the Massachusetts plan is a disaster. Costs in Massachusetts have risen faster than anywhere else. It hasn't found most of the uninsured people it was supposed to find. And it has broken the budget - wound up costing taxpayers much, much, much more than the government promised. I'm not big on Republicans or filibusters or that kind of confrontational politics. But we need the Republicans to stand firm on this. Health care reform is necessary. ObamaCare is just more of the same - at a mind-boggling, economy-destroying cost.
jcj
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.
And those of us paying for the current bill will wish we were dead! The dead will be the lucky ones! No more worries.
heresmine
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 12:57 p.m.
I'm pretty sure that thousands with insurance will also die. Sad fact.
himjo
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.
And thousands will also die WITH healthcare. And millions will be miserable because we will be a bankrupt nation due to the large amount of money this will cost, thus leading to more government control, thus leading to a country much like the ex Soviet Union, where everyone but the elite were living in misery. Where is the money going to come from? The taxpayer who won't have any money left and will then have to rely on the govenment. Read your history about how government dictatorships were formed,and you will see what is going on in America today.
AlphaAlpha
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 12:12 p.m.
Could? Per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis In the United State alone, recorded deaths per year (2000): * 12,000unnecessary surgery * 7,000medication errors in hospitals * 20,000other errors in hospitals * 80,000infections in hospitals * 106,000non-error, negative effects of drugs Based on these figures, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States. Your medical dollars at work? Or simply in use? More competition among medical professionals, would improve outcomes and lower costs for all. Increased competition could be legislated easily, but as the commenter above alluded, the medical business has very wealthy and influential lobbyists.
Soothslayer
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 12:08 p.m.
Insurance companies do nothing to improve the availability and quality of care to the patient. Have the funds go directly to the care provider and ask them to impliment best practices to help us all stay healthy, not the insurance companies. Insurance companies simply siphon resources away from care providers and into the hands of shareholders and other overhead.
TruthInNews
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.
So will moving to another state help prolong my life if there is no passage of universal health care?
cinnabar7071
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
Life, you'll never get out of it alive.
itisso
Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.
Besides these stats: We spend more per patient than any other industrialized nation in the world, and yet we are 37th in terms of results, measured by deaths and disabilities. Follow the money. The inusrance companies are spending over one hundred milllion a week to see that we do not pass health care reform. I know that none of these will convince those that believe anything the other side says......but just in case there is one out there that is influenced by the "facts" here they are.