Yes, it would continue to be 100%
Posted by aogTuesday, 15 December 2009 at 16:06 TrackBack Ping URL

Pet peeve time!

At Brothers Judd we have an article which contains

Kronick concludes that “the best available evidence” suggests “there would not be much change in the number of deaths in the United States as a result of universal coverage.”

Really? You mean with or without universal care, everyone dies? Amazing what you can figure out with enough research funds and a big enough title.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
pj Tuesday, 15 December 2009 at 18:11

Presumably he means “flux of deaths,” which is related to the mean age of death … if people live 78 years then N/78 will die annually on average, but if they live 80 years then N/80 will die annually on average, so there could be a reduction of annual deaths of (N/78 - N/80) if universal coverage actually helped.

I think you’re being nitpicky here AOG.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 15 December 2009 at 20:05

I am just basing it on what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said which is that with this health care nationalization, Americans would no longer fear death. Of course, he could have meant that it would make life so horrible that death would be a release.

P.S. If he meant “longevity”, he should had said that.

Post a comment