i didn’t make up this number, so complain to Harvard and Cambridge. They did the study.
i got the following data from http://www.historyguy.com/american_war_casualties.html.
47,300+ soldiers were killed in combat in the entire 12 YEARS of the Vietnam war. Counting only combat, the number of people who die in this country EVERY YEAR because they do not have health insurance is LARGER than EVERY ENTIRE WAR we have ever been in with the exceptions of the Civil War, WWI (only 6k larger), WW2 and Vietnam (about the same).
47,000 PER YEAR is three times the COMBINED TOTAL killed in combat in the following wars/conflicts:
Revolutionary War, Indian Wars, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, Gulf War (1991), Operation Enduring Freedom: Afghanistan/Pakistan (ongoing), Operation Enduring Freedom: Philippines (since 2001 — did you know were were fighting there, too? i didn’t!), Third Persian Gulf War “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and the Haiti Intervention.
Is it safer to go into combat for the United States than to live here without health insurance?
Abortions are legal because they are not people yet. Abortion should be legal up to age 18, and maybe later for stupid people 
. Pro Lifers KILL and blow up property to stop a legal activity, while conservatives allow and PREFER that people DIE who have been born, grew up, worked and are working and paid and paying taxes just because they can’t afford health insurance.
OOOPS! I misremembered the correct number. It is 45,000, not 47,000! Sorry.
Unsere Empfehlungen:
Plurk This Post 
Post to Bebo 
Buzz This Post 
Delicious 
Digg This Post 
Post to Diigo 
Facebook 
Post to FriendFeed 
Post to Google Buzz 
Send Gmail 
Post to LinkedIn 
Mixx This Post 
MySpace 
Ping This Post 
Reddit 
Post to Slashdot 
Post to Squidoo 
Stumble This Post 
Post to Technorati
While is it fine with liberals that millions upon millions of babies are murdered in the US while in their mother’s womb?
Because they see long healthy life as a privilege of the rich, and are still stuck with the spontanous generation mentality not realizing those who are sick and don’t get treatment increase your risk of getting sick.
Just another modern twist on Divine Right of Kings.
a) your number is bogus;
b) even if it were correct, CHARITY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
— James Madison
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
— Thomas Jefferson”
How about you go read some books that are peer reviewed and get some reliable sources. The internet is easily manipulated. So before you go posting things that are possibly not true go do your homework. Oh and it’s not the government’s job to keep people from dying. It’s our job to help those people. How much have you helped those people is the real question. “Equal rights, not equal things.”
Is it safer to go into combat for the United States than to live here without health insurance?
Not according to the illegal immigrants who get free health care in this country and never pay for health insurance.
A certain number of people are going to die every year no matter what. I would be very skeptical of the validity of statements like this.
In the first day of the Battle of the Somme in World War 1, the British alone lost 20,000 troops on the very first day. These kinds of losses went on for weeks, until about 1.5 million were killed on both sides just in this one battle alone over the course of weeks. When you consider that 1.5 million were killed in a matter of weeks, 47,000 who die over the course of a year is not bad at all. Statistics can be misleading and easily skewed to promote an editorial point of view.
20,000 a day works out to 7.2 million a year. Compare that to 47,000 a year and you get the point. Of the 47,000 who died, many of those would have died no matter how much insurance they had.
Good question I wonder the same. They are opposed to any of our tax dollars going to the well being of those who actually pay them. It’s ok to them if we go completely broke killing others and feeding the rich.Poor and the middle class are are the cause of the nations problems even though they themselves mostly reside in those classes.
Can you please do a little research before using these numbers..here’s how they came up with those numbers:
In short, the IOM used the statistic from the JAMA study to calculate how many people would have died if everyone in the U.S. was insured. It then subtracted that number from the number of people who did die to determine the number of people who died due to lack of insurance.
The problem lies in the statistic in the original JAMA study. Specifically, the data in that study could not rule out the possibility that lacking insurance has no effect on mortality. Nor could it rule out that the effect might be larger, up to 55%. Thus, it is possible that the number of deaths annually due to uninsurance could be as low as zero or as high as 47,000.
So Goodfriend could have said that nobody dies each year from being uninsured and been just as accurate as claiming the number at 47,000. But that wouldn’t help sell a big government health plan.
Also, the deaths that were recorded were automatically counted as deaths due t ono insurance, no one verified…all those years later that these people were still uninsured. They just ASSUMED that they died from no health care…pretty solid evidence…wow!
Free care is not a right.
It is ignorance on the part of the poor republicans…and greed on the part of the wealthy republicans. The health care industry pays these politicians for their votes.
I cannot believe the answer that brought in the issue of abortion…but that is typical of republicans skirting the real issues with a smoke screen answer.
Excellent question and your research is awesome. Seems it is safer to go into combat, but when they come home, will they have health care….they do not, but what will happen in the future. How naive the vets and the social security crowd have become. They are not guaranteed anything….for all we know, they may be next.
I’m not going to argue the war numbers, but you don’t reference the Harvard/Cambridge numbers.
How do I know they really came from there?
Next I need to know how many people died in one year that did have insurance.
You cannot possibly do a math equation with only 1 number.(you can but we won’t get into that here)
What is the ratio of dead insured to dead uninsured?
How many of those insured and uninsured would have died anyway, with or without care?
There are too many facets to this to just scream about 1 number (which I disagree with) and disregard the rest.
Do some more research first.
Since Progressives have advocated “reform” for approximately 100-years (TR being the first), show me the graveyard full of these 4,700,000 people who died from “lack of insurance”… how about just ONE death certificate stating death was attributable to “lack of insurance”? People die from DISEASE, INJURY, or AGE… not because the government (and the taxpayer by proxy) didn’t give them something. I can use the same statistic analysis, this time using TRUE NUMBERS of “people who died in automobile accidents in the US since 1960″ who, at an average number of 41,000 (on a lean year) per year, far outnumber deaths in all wars fought by the US since the Revolutionary. How about limiting ourselves to just those caused by ALCOHOL? And yet, I don’t see liberals giving up their cars… or Obama quitting SMOKING: want to total LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO SMOKING?
Nobody dies from lack of insurance. 0. Zero. None.
Anybody can walk into an E.R. and not be turned away, regardless of whether you have insurance.
The rest of your numbers are just blatant lies.
If you want to help somebody, go for it, no one is stopping you. But if you stop reaching in your pocket and reach into mine, then you are an evil thief and should be in jail, just like the Democrats.