<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We are paying more and not getting enough for our healthcare dollar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2010/01/04/we-are-paying-more-and-not-getting-enough-for-our-healthcare-dollar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2010/01/04/we-are-paying-more-and-not-getting-enough-for-our-healthcare-dollar/</link>
	<description>Thoughtful, intelligent, entertaining, progressive discussion about politics, sports and whatever</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:14:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ecthompson</title>
		<link>http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2010/01/04/we-are-paying-more-and-not-getting-enough-for-our-healthcare-dollar/comment-page-1/#comment-63143</link>
		<dc:creator>ecthompson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/?p=11619#comment-63143</guid>
		<description>I think that your criticism is valid. On the other hand, the study is also valid if you&#160;believe as I do&#160;that in order to have good affordable healthcare you need to have constant health insurance.

I appreciate your comments.&#160;

happy new year to you.&#160; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that your criticism is valid. On the other hand, the study is also valid if you&nbsp;believe as I do&nbsp;that in order to have good affordable healthcare you need to have constant health insurance.</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments.&nbsp;</p>
<p>happy new year to you.&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe White</title>
		<link>http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2010/01/04/we-are-paying-more-and-not-getting-enough-for-our-healthcare-dollar/comment-page-1/#comment-63142</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/?p=11619#comment-63142</guid>
		<description>&quot;the huge number of uninsured we have in this country, accounting for as many as 45,000 deaths annually&quot;

The study that purports to show this is very poorly done and I am surprised that you still quote it.

The study actually worked like this.

A group of people were documented to be without insurance at one point in time (call this Time A)

Then they were tracked for up to fourteen years after Time A.

Their uninsured status was not verified at any other point:

&quot;as it only recorded reported insurance status at the time the survey was taken.&quot; http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17

They could&#039;ve gotten insurance after Time A.

A study by CBO http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4210&amp;type=0&amp;sequence=2 shows that 2/3 of the people who become uninsured remain so for 12 months or less. 44% remain so for only 4 months or less.

If the subjects died at any point in the 14 years, the &#039;study&#039; that you are quoting concludes that they still must&#039;ve been uninsured AND that it also was causative in the death.

Their status as &#039;insured or not&#039; was not verified at the time of death, much less &#039;proven&#039; to be part of the reason (or the main reason ) for the death. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the huge number of uninsured we have in this country, accounting for as many as 45,000 deaths annually&#8221;</p>
<p>The study that purports to show this is very poorly done and I am surprised that you still quote it.</p>
<p>The study actually worked like this.</p>
<p>A group of people were documented to be without insurance at one point in time (call this Time A)</p>
<p>Then they were tracked for up to fourteen years after Time A.</p>
<p>Their uninsured status was not verified at any other point:</p>
<p>&#8220;as it only recorded reported insurance status at the time the survey was taken.&#8221; <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17</a></p>
<p>They could&#8217;ve gotten insurance after Time A.</p>
<p>A study by CBO <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4210&#038;type=0&#038;sequence=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4210&#038;type=0&#038;sequence=2</a> shows that 2/3 of the people who become uninsured remain so for 12 months or less. 44% remain so for only 4 months or less.</p>
<p>If the subjects died at any point in the 14 years, the &#8216;study&#8217; that you are quoting concludes that they still must&#8217;ve been uninsured AND that it also was causative in the death.</p>
<p>Their status as &#8216;insured or not&#8217; was not verified at the time of death, much less &#8216;proven&#8217; to be part of the reason (or the main reason ) for the death.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

