Romney: People Don't Die "Because They Don't Have Insurance"

[retromike22]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romney-health-insurance_n_1957419.html

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal Obamacare, says that people without health insurance don't have to worry about dying as a result.

"We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance," Romney said in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch's editorial board on Wednesday.

While it's difficult to tell how many people die each year from lack of health insurance, one study, from a health care advocacy group, puts the number at 26,000 deaths per year.

Just keep talking Romney, keep talking.

[Franzl]

Anyone with a brain should know this is untrue.

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romney-health-insurance_n_1957419.html

While it's difficult to tell how many people die each year from lack of health insurance, one study, from a health care advocacy group, puts the number at 26,000 deaths per year.

That study confuses cause and effect.

[Franzl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romney-health-insurance_n_1957419.html

While it's difficult to tell how many people die each year from lack of health insurance, one study, from a health care advocacy group, puts the number at 26,000 deaths per year.

That study confuses cause and effect.

Ah I get it. People don't have health insurance because they've died. That makes sense.

[Democrat]

Romney really does have mashed potato bains.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Good news to all those who currently have health care -- you can now save hundreds of dollars a month without fear of death!

[7,052,770]

Romney understood basic math in 2006 when he passed Obamacare in Massachusetts, but he's forgotten it now?

Please.  I am pretty confident that if Romney wins, he'll "compromise" and keep the individual mandate, perhaps repealing some minor detail and packaging it as a "repeal of Obamacare."

[pbrower2a]

Romney has no idea of what life is like for the working poor. To him, such people are to be fired so that he can make money sending jobs to the Third World and get tax breaks for doing so.   

[Speed of Sound]

It sickens me to think of how many lower working class people will vote for this man having heard this...and then eventually die due to lack of health care. He's disgusting and they're self-destructive. It's not spin, it's just a sad, sad truth.

[minionofmidas]

So this is why people don't die. I'd been wondering about that.

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romney-health-insurance_n_1957419.html

While it's difficult to tell how many people die each year from lack of health insurance, one study, from a health care advocacy group, puts the number at 26,000 deaths per year.

That study confuses cause and effect.

Ah I get it. People don't have health insurance because they've died. That makes sense.

They don't have insurance because they are on average less responsible than people who do have insurance. Responsible people, on average, also have better health habits, and, thus, live longer. The correlation is far from 1 to 1, but it is real.

It is clear on the extremes. For instance, alcoholics often find it difficult to hold a job for the obvious reasons. That tends to drop them out of the employer covered insurance pool. Their alcoholism, also, tend to shorten their lives. Alcohol is the cause of their death. A lack of health insurance is merely an effect of their disease.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Was Romney wrong in what he actually said (not the thread title)? Does 911 deny people an ambulance because they don't have insurance?

[opebo]

A lack of health insurance is merely an effect of their disease.

In other words, private health insurance is useless - one can only have it if one is well.

[BigSkyBob]

A lack of health insurance is merely an effect of their disease.

In other words, private health insurance is useless - one can only have it if one is well.

Nonsense.  What I said is that the study cited was flawed. Having a high deductable health insurance plan is marginally worthwhile. Like all other forms of insurance, the well buy protection against the possibility of becoming sick in the future. As I said, responsible people tend to both live longer and place a higher value on having such insurance.

[opebo]

Nonsense.  What I said is that the study cited was flawed. Having a high deductable health insurance plan is marginally worthwhile. Like all other forms of insurance, the well buy protection against the possibility of becoming sick in the future. As I said, responsible people tend to both live longer and place a higher value on having such insurance.

BS, I was just playing with you a bit.  You and I both know there's no such thing as 'personal responsibility' and that private health insurance can't constitute 'protection', by definition.  But you'll never admit it, so, never mind.

[BigSkyBob]

Nonsense.  What I said is that the study cited was flawed. Having a high deductable health insurance plan is marginally worthwhile. Like all other forms of insurance, the well buy protection against the possibility of becoming sick in the future. As I said, responsible people tend to both live longer and place a higher value on having such insurance.

BS, I was just playing with you a bit.  You and I both know there's no such thing as 'personal responsibility' and that private health insurance can't constitute 'protection', by definition.  But you'll never admit it, so, never mind.

1) Some people smoke, drink, take drugs, eat to excess, make poor food choices, and fail to exercise. Other people don't smoke, don't drink [or at least not to excess], take drugs, watch their weight, opt for healthy food choices and exercise. No matter what you wish to call this disparity, it exists.

2) We all know fire insurance doesn't offer "protection" against fires, just the economic damage they cause. The same is true of proper health insurance.

3) You offer a conspiracy theory that you just happen to be right, and, any failure to accede to your intellectual magnificence just happens to be a character flaw. The alternative theory is that I am stating you are wrong because I really believe that you are wrong, and/or you really are wrong.

[opebo]

1) Some people smoke, drink, take drugs, eat to excess, make poor food choices, and fail to exercise. Other people don't smoke, don't drink [or at least not to excess], take drugs, watch their weight, opt for healthy food choices and exercise. No matter what you wish to call this disparity, it exists.

Listing behaviors doesn't prove volition, BS.  Those are epidemiological realities caused by society, not 'individuals'.   If you wish to try to attribute 'intention' to such things, you can only reasonably lay the blame with the rich, who own these 'individuals', control them, and prescribe their lifestyles, diets, in fact their every action.  To blame these powerless people is like blaming the cow in the field for his bovine spongiform.

I am stating you are wrong because I really believe that you are wrong, and/or you really are wrong.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, BS.  It is much more flattering to you to suggest your disingenuous than that you really swallow all that, believe me.