The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study.
The analysis produced by two Harvard medical researchers estimates that 2,266 US military veterans under the age of 65 died in 2008 because they lacked health coverage and had reduced access to medical care.
That figure is more than 14 times higher than the 155 US troop deaths in Afghanistan in 2008, the study says.
Released as the United States commemorates fallen soldiers on Veterans Day, the study warns that even health care provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VA) leaves many veterans without coverage.
The analysis uses census data to isolate the number of US veterans who lack both private health coverage and care offered by the VA.
"That's a group that's about 1.5 million people," said David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program who co-authored the study.
Himmelstein and co-author Stephanie Woolhandler, also a Harvard medical professor, overlaid that figure with another study examining the mortality rate associated with lack of health insurance.
"The uninsured have about a 40 percent higher risk of dying each year than otherwise comparable insured individuals," Himmelstein told AFP.
"Putting that all together you get an estimate of almost 2,300 -- 2,266 veterans who die each year from lack of health insurance."
Only some US veterans have access to medical care through the VA and coverage is apportioned on the basis of eight "priority groups."
"They range from things like people who were prisoners of war, who have coverage for life, or who have battle injuries and therefore have coverage for their injuries for life," said Himmelstein.
Veterans who fall below an income threshold that is determined on a county-by-county basis can qualify for care, but many veterans are "working poor" and fall just above the bracket.
"The priority eight group, the lowest priority, are veterans above the very poor group who have no other reason to be eligible and that group is essentially shut out of the VA," according to Himmelstein.
The study comes as the US Senate weighs health care reform legislation and whether to offer government health insurance.
Himmelstein warns that congressional proposals could still leave veterans uncovered and favors a national health care program similar to those in Britain and Canada.
Copyright © 2009 Agence France Presse
Technorati Tags: 
This is another example of our corrupt government. If I hear one more congressman talk about family values, I might erupt. Many would march for a revolution without the cause of corrupton mentioned. If we cannot care for our veterans, we have no reason to celebrate November 11th. This is a very strong example of greed within our government. I am not blaming any political party for this as both are equally guilty of ignoring our armed forces.
Sandy
I have never heard of a person dying due to a lack of health insurance. Hospitals are required by law to provide the proper care to anyone who walks through the doors. That is a major reason for the immigration problem we have in this country. So, the argument that the lack of health care is killing people is not a very strong one. Yet, right after veterens day, it does strike a chord in people and will make them advocate government health reform more than they would have if they had not reported this.
I am a vet, and it breaks my heart to hear of fellow service men and women dying, but the fact remains that the health care is out there. Most vets will not seek it out on their own. But I am on the page of giving the best, and I mean the BEST, health care to our service men and women. It is the least that we can do as a nation.
Free markets are the only ones that work without going completly to the total socialistic policies of a monarchy or communisim. Any government tampering disturbs the balance and creates large conglomerates at the expense of the little companies and tax payers.
Dan
I know my comment will do nothing to change any minds here but sometimes you just have to speak up when falsehoods are being spread around irresponsibly.
I can give you the name of a young lady who died and HAD health insurance. Nataline Sarkisyan. She died at 17 because CIGNA refused to pay for her liver transplant and guess what, the hospital did NOT step up to do it. Finally after lots of public pressure CIGNA reversed itself and said they would pay but it was too late and she died the same day of their reversal.
I could go on and on but I know it would not change your mind. If you can flippantly ignore a Harvard study you can just as easily flip me off too.
Technically you may be right and some of these people could have gone for treatment. But when you are barely scraping by you may decide you cant go for any treatment because any more bills could destroy you and your family financially. You don't want to see you wife and kids living in a car so you hope you get better on your own so you don't end up becoming homeless.
There is a mass delusion on the right that the free market is the best way to dispense health care. Well guess what it is NOT. NO OTHER RICH COUNTRY IN THE WORLD uses a free market system to deliver healthcare to their citizens. NONE, ZERO, ZIP. Not the Japanese, not the Germans, and not even the Swiss which is probably the European country that is most like the US.
Some countries use government run single payer systems while others use heavily regulated private companies, some use a combination of both. But NONE of the rich countries that insure all their citizens use a free market system. They don't because they all say it DOES NOT WORK.
If you want to inform yourselves on the issue watch the PBS Frontline show "sick around the world". They describe how 5 different countries provide health care to all their citizens. Unless you are hopelessly indoctrinated by the political drivel that is thrown around in our country you will have your eyes opened like I did. After I watched that show I felt completely embarrassed by the health care "debate" that is going on in this country.
Thank you Dan, for explaining the problems of our discussions on health care solutions. I agree that free markets are the best and may be the only way to solve the problem.
Could it be that our Citizens do not respect the free market approach due to the corruption found in our government to knock it down? You have opened a much-needed subject that I want to expand. Stick around please?
Sandy
The free market is dead in the minds of the People. Government slowly and deliberately killed it like a malevolent child tears the wings off a fly to watch it flit about on the floor, never to fly again.
griff. I fear you are correct. We have no recourse or action left except to accept the inevitable.
Sandy
I see nothing wrong with the free market for many things if not the majority of things. But it does NOT work for EVERYTHING. I guess when the "Free Market" is your hammer EVERYTHING looks like a nail.
If you remember long ago fire departments used to be private. You bought a badge from them and put it on your house. If your house caught fire and had a badge on it they put the fire out, if it did not they let it burn to the ground.
The problem with that model was that when they let that house burn down others caught fire and a whole neighborhood could go up in flames. So it was decided that for the "common good" the fire department should be public entity.
"The free market is dead in the minds of the People." is a laughable statement. "The free market is good" is drummed into the minds of the masses by the corporate media every minute of every day. Go ahead and say something should be "socialized" and see how far that will get you in this country.
What is dead is the notion of the need for a "common good". The thought that some things should be done for the good of the population as a whole is looked at by many with total distain. I am somewhat amazed that we still have public schools in this country. I mean seriously if my money should not be used to subsidize someone else's health care why should it be use to subsidize the education of kids that are not mine?
Why not privatize the police? Wouldn't that be great! Say your ex is breaking into your house and wants to kill you. You call 911 and the first thing they ask for is your credit card. But darn you are over your limit. You cant pay so they won't come out to help you. They end up transferring you to a cheaper private police department that will give you a "Payday Loan" to cover them coming out. Unfortunately as they are gathering your personal info for the loan, your ex breaks in and kills you.
Oh well it's just the invisible hand of the free market working its magic, just like it does with the health of the American public. But hey it does make SOME people REALLY rich and that is ALL that matters in the good old USofA.
In regard to your statement, "What is dead is the notion of the need for a "common good".", I think you might find that what has sharply reduced the tendency for people in a community to engage in voluntary social power for the addressing of a "common good" is a result of a vocal segment of the people calling upon the State to address issues through the use of political power (force). The State is always more than willing to oblige -- and grow ever larger in the process. To reduce it to the common venacular, "Let the state do it -- why else am I paying all these taxes".
As to your examples of what you think must be supplied by the government -- and that is only conjecture -- they would be the provence of local government, not the federal government, so they do not really support your argument.
And in regard to healthcare, you are wrong to think it is functioning in a free market. Not only is it heavily regulated in general, but the government is also a major player in the industry through medicare, medicaid, military and military retirees, and legislation. I mention this only because if folks go around not even knowing what the source of the problem is, they will be only to happy to gobble up what politicians toss them.
An aside: If your "ex" is breaking in to kill you, and instead of being prepared to take responsibility for your own defense, you are depending on a phone call to 911 to save you, you will most likely not have a good day. There are things that truly do require you not depend on the authorities that be.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
I disagree with your first conclusion. What I am seeing is that the majority of people are stretched to the their limits just trying to provide for themselves and their families, and have less time and money to help others in the community.
Where I am located more and more people are going to food pantries, (Private voluntarily run I add), for food to help them make ends meet. I've seen several instances where people said last year they donated to this food bank, this year Im taking food from it.
As far as your second statement goes I my argument was not conjecture. It was backed up by a fact. As far as local vs federal is irrelevant. A local government deals with local things like a fire department, the federal deals with big issues like the military.
As far as your health care points go I agree that there is some regulation and a large minority of it is already government run. I was referring to the privately run part of the system. It is regulated but not well enough because medical inflation is rising faster than inflation in general and is unsustainable. Actually the whole system INCLUDING the government run part needs a complete overhaul because it is also growing at an unsustainable rate. As far as I can see the whole thing is going to come crashing down because Congress is not going to do any meaningful reform. This is due to the corrupting influence of campaign donations, which IMHO are nothing but bribes.
As far as your last statement goes fortunately I have the means and resources to take care of myself and defend myself. Unfortunately not everyone does. I suppose we could solve that by doing away with the police departments and just issue every individual, (including grandma), with a handgun, a can a mace, and a stun gun and let everybody fend for themselves. We could do that for a few years then let the people vote on which system they liked better. ;-)
As far as I can see you have a preconceived view of the world then just work backwards from that view to create arguments that support it. "Think Tanks" do it all the time. I try and do the opposite. I look at what has worked or not in the past, and what works and does not in other countries. Then I draw from those observations to conclude what is the best thing to do. That is actually what Taiwan did when they decided to go to a universal health care system. What a concept! That would NEVER happen in this country. Like Chruchill said, "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else first!"
Alan Greenspan had a preconceived view that deregulation and free markets were the best way to go because banks operating in their own self-interest would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and themselves.
After the current financial crash he actually admitted that his preconceived views of things were wrong. Unfortunately we are now all suffering because reality differed quite a bit from Grenspan's fantasy of how things really operate.
Unfortunately, this being a comment section rather than a forum for extended discussion (and this article will soon sink into oblivion, anyway), an extensive response is not practical, so, I will simply provide a short reply to your claims. The demise of social power relative to political power has been going on in earnest since at least the early part of the 20th century and is not the current phenomenon you seem to be implying.
As to food banks, yes, they are privately run and, yes, they are a good example of social power. But charities are only a part of the social power once widely employed by communities. I will also have to disagree with your contention that the federal government is merely local government writ large, or that what you claim as fact could not be better accomplished in the market.
I think you are also mistaking regulation for a desire for price controls (by the way, regulation actually increases the cost of healthcare) and I think you are incorrect when suggesting that because a portion of an industry is privately run it means that it is operating in a free market.
I am glad you have the means to “take care of yourself” but might I point out that the system you favor does not have a very good track record of preventing murders and assaults? I guess it does have a good record of coming by and cleaning up some of the mess, though. If that is the system with which you are satisfied, okay, but others may prefer an alternative.
Perhaps what you view as a ‘pragmatic’ approach is nothing more than your looking to the past and to other countries to justify your preconceived notions?;-) Why else would you consider Alan Greenspan, a politically approved, government appointed apparatchik who believed he and his government fiefdom could successful manipulate markets without regard to the workings of actual market forces or economic laws, to be an advocate of free markets? One might just as well suggest that President Bush was an advocate of the Constitution.:-)
But, seeking one thing that we can agree upon, yes, I agree that the current system is massively FUBAR.
Yours,
Issodhos
I must concur.
Socialized medicine would be just horrible for America. I cannot abide socialized medicine. I'm sorry. And, by the way, keep your damn hands off my medicare.
Kent Shaw
Giving up. We do not have a government that takes on the authority to keep the common good in their laws. I may be poorly influenced by attending school in the 30s and 40s and learned that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government. It was the ultimate freedom from oppression. Somehow over these many years, the American people look to the Federal Government (Big Daddy) as their source of security in all aspects.
I would hope that the government would be counting on the old bromide to "do no harm."
But today, we have allowed the Insurance Industry (and it is a government-financed industry) to call the shots on their ability to stop covering their contracts.
We are here and responding to the commentary to talk about the situation. But we cannot pull out of our Insurance coverage when the government mandates that we must be covered. We are simply debating what will be inevitable when the Senate takes their vote.
Sandy
My main point was concerning free markets, that they are somehow magic can do NO wrong and can solve ALL problems. After living on this planet for better than a half century I have found that to be a flawed world view. Just has the view that the government is magic, can do no wrong and can solve all problems is also a flawed view.
My experience has been that the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes and that was the point I was trying to make.
I agree with your point that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect the people from the evils that government can do. But not EVERYTHING that the government does IS BAD.
Social Security has plugged along for 70 years helping to prevent people from living out the ends of their lives in total poverty. More recently we were told 401Ks invested in the stock market was a better way to go. Well you got millions of people that are looking at devastated 401K accounts, questioning that reality.
IMHO we need to drop the extreme political dogma we all have been fed from both sides of the political spectrum and honestly try to decide the best way to deal with the serious issues this country now faces.
Giving up. We all have a desire to see everyone free from tyranny expecially home grown from our government. Not everything the government does is bad but could it be done better, more efficiently, less costly? These are the things we must discuss or we will keep making the same mistakes over and over. Social Security is not the ideal system as the money was put in the hands of a corrupt Congress. Medicare cannot continue to carry the responsibility of the seniors. If any of us ran a business like our government does, we would be out of business in a matter of months.
Using rational reason is not an extreme political dogma. The American voters thought they had the answer to our problems a year ago and yet so little has changed and virtually no improvements have even been discussed.
Did changing Administrations make a fig's difference in our problems? It is time we had a long look at our priorities and forget our partisan labels. I haven't had a workable political party for years. Just a quick look back at where everything went wrong in America; it doesn't take much to see that our government screwed us well and unless we take our responsibilities back it will continue to destroy all of us.
Fiscal responsibility is missing in our government and the cost of elections is killing our finances and our spirits. We can sit here for the next 20 years and point fingers at the bad government or we can work on a better, ethical and honest Congress. If the social issues were left out we could put a government together that would make Jefferson proud.