Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (14095)	3/8/2010 8:31:33 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

Maybe enough to account for most of the discrepancy in mortality. I expect so. There are lots and lots of variables. From where I sit it seems that most of what younger people die from is less a function of the health care system than other factors, most of which are lifestyle. Some are genetic and some are just plain bad luck. I've known four younger people in my life who have died from brain tumors. I don't know what the health care system can do about that. What irks me about studies is the way that relative risks are used. 40% looks to the casual observer like you have a 40% risk of dying if you're uninsured. I can see why folks get exercised about that. But it's inflammatory. A 40% increase in a negligible risk is a near negligible risk. The other thing about epidemiological studies is that risk is determined by correlation. Again, the casual reader will infer causation, which is inflammator. Often the folks who write the stories and even the studies themselves imply causation. But it ain't causation. Gotta be careful when using studies as a basis for opinions.