Obamacare death panels are finally proven

[IXP]

But not where they were expected.

The "Death panels" are the Republican governers and legislatures that opted out of Medicaid expansion:

Predicted national-level consequences of states opting out of Medicaid expansion are displayed in Exhibit 2. We estimate the number of deaths attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states at between 7,115 and 17,104.

Full article:

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/...d-expansion-the-health-and-financial-impacts/

Well, at least it is only the lazy, good-for-nothing poor who are dying. We superior people can take some comfort in that.

IXP

 

[Unabogie]

First the Takers use up all our emergency rooms, now they're hoarding cemetery space? When will their perfidy end?

WHO IS JOHN GALT?

 

[pgwenthold]

Predicted national-level consequences of states opting out of Medicaid expansion are displayed in Exhibit 2. We estimate the number of deaths attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states at between 7,115 and 17,104.

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish people who made "estimates" would have a concept of significant figures. Between 7115 and 17104? Really?

You think with a range of 10000 that the single digit has any significance at all? For pete's sake.

Seriously, what would be lost if you said "somewhere in the range 7000 and 17000"?

The whole point of estimates is that they are not precise numbers.

 

[GodMark2]

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish people who made "estimates" would have a concept of significant figures. Between 7115 and 17104? Really?

You think with a range of 10000 that the single digit has any significance at all? For pete's sake.

Seriously, what would be lost if you said "somewhere in the range 7000 and 17000"?

The whole point of estimates is that they are not precise numbers.

Maybe the original figures were metric and he had to convert?

 

[Peephole]

Don't get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly.

 

[Vorticity]

The death panels are real. I went to what I thought was an ordinary checkup at my usual doctor. However, when I entered the exam room, I instead found a Death Panel of Obama bureaucrats waiting for me. They informed me that in 10 business days I would be subject to the blood eagle.

Thanks, Obama.

 

[Upchurch]

The death panels are real. I went to what I thought was an ordinary checkup at my usual doctor. However, when I entered the exam room, I instead found a Death Panel of Obama bureaucrats waiting for me. They informed me that in 10 business days I would be subject to the blood eagle.

Thanks, Obama.

Sounds very patriotic.

 

[Minoosh]

Between 7115 and 17104? Really?

An unrelated linguistic quibble: "Between 7115 and 17104" in my mind excludes 7115 and 17104. I usually edited such phrases to say "7115 to 17104 deaths." Especially in usages such as "between 3 and 5." It conserves on precious pixels.

No one agrees with me; "between ... and" has become near-universal.

I have heard a justification for giving the time as "about 8:07" - "well, my watch is about 7 minutes slow, and it says 8."

 

[DarthFishy]

An unrelated linguistic quibble: "Between 7115 and 17104" in my mind excludes 7115 and 17104. I usually edited such phrases to say "7115 to 17104 deaths." Especially in usages such as "between 3 and 5." It conserves on precious pixels.

No one agrees with me; "between ... and" has become near-universal.

I have heard a justification for giving the time as "about 8:07" - "well, my watch is about 7 minutes slow, and it says 8."

I agree with you!

I suppose it's my programming background that makes me say something like: "Between and including 7715 and 17104".

Though your use of 'to' is shorter and less cumbersome.

 

[marplots]

Yeah death! The final comfort.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree with you!

I suppose it's my programming background that makes me say something like: "Between and including 7715 and 17104".

Though your use of 'to' is shorter and less cumbersome.

SQL BETWEEN is inclusive.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The death panels are real. I went to what I thought was an ordinary checkup at my usual doctor. However, when I entered the exam room, I instead found a Death Panel of Obama bureaucrats waiting for me. They informed me that in 10 business days I would be subject to the blood eagle.

Thanks, Obama.

Was that before or after they made you drink the Slurpee made out of pureed abortion fetuses?

They put sprinkles on mine - yum!

 

[pgwenthold]

SQL BETWEEN is inclusive.

Considering that the tens and one places are not significant in the least (nor even the hundreds, more than likely), there is no difference between estimating "between 7114 and 17104" or "between 7111 and 17125," regardless of whether you consider between to be inclusive or not.

 

[Bob Klase]

SQL BETWEEN is inclusive.

And in the real world, if (for example) you park BETWEEN two other cars it would generally not be inclusive.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

SQL BETWEEN is inclusive.

Good to know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Considering that the tens and one places are not significant in the least (nor even the hundreds, more than likely), there is no difference between estimating "between 7114 and 17104" or "between 7111 and 17125," regardless of whether you consider between to be inclusive or not.

And in the real world, if (for example) you park BETWEEN two other cars it would generally not be inclusive.

You both make interesting points that have nothing to do with the context of programming code, which is what I was responding to. Unfortunately, that makes your interesting points completely irrelevant to my specific point.

Although, in context of the greater thread... the magnitude between the two end points does sort of call in to question the specificity of their estimates

 

[pgwenthold]

And in the real world, if (for example) you park BETWEEN two other cars it would generally not be inclusive.

OTOH, if you are told to park somewhere between nyah (point vaguely to the left) and thyah (point vaguely to the right), then it would generally not only be "inclusive" but would allow for slopping over, since you don't even have well defined end points.

 

[GodMark2]

OTOH, if you are told to park somewhere between nyah (point vaguely to the left) and thyah (point vaguely to the right), then it would generally not only be "inclusive" but would allow for slopping over, since you don't even have well defined end points.

Even when the endpoints are clearly marked by yellow/white lines, many people seem to think that 'slopping over' by a foot or two is perfectly fine.

 

[Muldur]

"Death panels" and "rationing" are just as prevalent in the private, for-profit insurance industry as they are in public health service-based systems, they just have a different basis.

Hypothetical: Who gets any given donor heart? The 80 year old who also has a raft of other medical problems and has maybe a year or two more to live if they're lucky even with the transplant? Or the teenager in otherwise good health who can potentially live decades?

In a NHS setting, the answer is based on "best use" of the heart. Who will benefit the most?

In the American system, the answer is based on who has the money to pay.

Given that such decisions are inevitable under our current limitations, I know which system I prefer.