Indiana is exactly the same today. The difference is Indiana has historically been RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN----and these same decades of REAGAN/CLINTON/BUSH has killed the conservative Republicans and installed the same 5% to the 1% far-right global Wall Street players. I showed Bayh as the CLINTON PLAYER=====today we must look to whom TRUMP goes as Vice President----PENCE------PENCE is known to be enriching himself in global, predatory health care----and he uses religion to kill our public health by rolling them into global corporations labelled religious but ARE NOT. So, PENCE will simply MOVE FORWARD the same deregulation, consolidation, killing of oversight and accountability within our developed nation health care system building global health systems operating as any predatory, profit-making global Wall Street corporation.
If a Hillary was installed as President she would be doing the same.
Here we see that same Indiana University Medical being made global health care-----just as our University of Maryland Medical System-----all the staff that made this Indiana state system great have left and/or are being pushed out----and a global health tourism and staffing is filling this system killing the 99% of Indiana citizens. Wake up 99%----stop allowing race and class divide ---this affects both Republican and Democratic voters.
PENCE AND BAYH ARE NO DOUBT THAT 5% TO THE 1% TEMPORARILY ENRICHED----SHOW THEM THE MONEY AND THEY WILL DO ANYTHING GLOBAL WALL STREET TELLS THEM.
This guy PRETENDS to be in small town Indiana looking to improve conditions for underserved around the world----when Indiana has the worst reputation for serving the underserved in INDIANA------it is likely Dr Einterz cut his teeth on global health care expanding global health corporations in Foreign Economic Zones overseas where they IGNORE ALL DEVELOPED NATION HEALTH ETHOS AND MORALITY
'Dr. Robert Einterz, asociate dean for global health at the Indiana University School of Medicine and co-founder of the Indiana-Kenya Partnership, will direct the new IU Center for Global Health. The center will aim to improve the health of underserved populations around the world'.
These are the global 1% and their 2% all 5% across population groups work---this partnership in Kenya is simply that Foreign Economic Zone expansion into Africa-----think of what health care access across Asia and Latin America has occurred in these Foreign Economic Zones-----
Last modified: Wednesday, November 3, 2010
New center will strengthen IU's leadership in global health care
Nov. 4, 2010
INDIANAPOLIS -- Building upon its historic and highly successful Indiana-Kenya Partnership, Indiana University will establish a new Center for Global Health that will further the university's longstanding effort to improve the health of underserved populations around the world.
Dr. Robert Einterz, asociate dean for global health at the Indiana University School of Medicine and co-founder of the Indiana-Kenya Partnership, will direct the new IU Center for Global Health. The center will aim to improve the health of underserved populations around the world.
IU President Michael A. McRobbie announced the initiative during a recent 20th-anniversary celebration of the Indiana-Kenya Partnership, which will form the "core" of the new global health center.
"This university-wide center will foster collaborative and interdisciplinary partnerships across the university and around the world in order to create successful global health care systems, train the next generation of global health leaders and conduct and disseminate research that will truly change the world," he said.
IU will make an initial start-up grant of $100,000 to the center to aid in its establishment, McRobbie added.
The center will be directed by Robert Einterz, M.D., associate dean for global health and professor of clinical medicine at the IU School of Medicine. Einterz is the co-founder of IU's partnership with the Moi University School of Medicine in Kenya and the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) program, which has provided HIV/AIDS treatment to more than 110,000 Kenyans at 25 sites throughout rural and urban western Kenya.
The Indiana-Kenya Partnership, launched in 1989, also commonly known as the AMPATH program, is considered among the world's leading models of collaboration in global health, training and research, and has received considerable notoriety.
One of the largest and most comprehensive HIV/AIDS programs in the world, AMPATH has been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize and has been the beneficiary of several major grants, including a $65 million grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2007.
The new IU Center for Global Health will serve as a unifying infrastructure for all of IU's global health initiatives, which also include partnerships with institutions in Botswana, China, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Japan, Liberia, Mexico and Thailand, among other underserved areas.
Housed at the IU School of Medicine, the center will encourage individuals from multiple campuses, disciplines and schools within the IU system to work collaboratively toward developing sustainable programs that address the many dimensions of global health and health-care delivery, such as access to clean water and nutritious food, income security and gender equity.
Additionally, it will seek to grow a critical mass of health education, research and policy experts from around the nation and world, while providing a high-quality training curriculum for students who wish to pursue careers in global health.
"Millions of lives around the world are cut short because of preventable diseases, and too many families suffer needlessly," said Einterz. "At Indiana University's new Center for Global Health, our mission will be to provide care, training and research to ensure that all people have access to basic health care, regardless of where they live."
When the global 1% and their 2% PRETEND all this expansion into developing nations is GOOD MEDICINE----while millions of people are enslaved, made fearful of things like this growing human organ trafficing---telling us hundreds of thousands are being save globally by expanded organ transplant-----it is PURE GREED-------NOT HUMAN RIGHTS-----
If DR EINTERZ wanted to make an impact in underserved citizens' health care standards he would be down in Latin America or in Asia fighting what was unleashed on those populations---not in Africa and US trying to expand Foreign Economic Zone pragmatic nilism in these regions.
When we allow the far-right wing working for global Wall Street control both major political parties all public policy will bring benefit to only the global 1% and their 2% at great harm to 99% of citizens......that is who our 5% to the 1% are IN BALTIMORE----IN MARYLAND---GET RID OF THEM
Illegal human organ traffic flourishing in Latin AmericaThe Americas Post - Organ donor illegal trafficking
The illegal trade in kidneys has risen to such a level that an estimated 10,000 black market operations involving purchased human organs now take place annually, or more than one an hour, World Health Organization (WHO) experts have revealed.
Evidence collected by a worldwide network of doctors shows that traffickers are defying laws intended to curtail their activities and are cashing in on rising international demand for replacement kidneys driven by the increase in diabetes and other diseases.
Though not comparable in size to other forms of human trafficking, such as forced labor and sexual exploitation, organ trafficking still represents a highly lucrative trade for criminal gangs. Organs Watch, an NGO that tracks illegal organ sales, estimates that up to 20000 kidneys alone are sold worldwide each year on the black market where they can fetch a price of around $150,000. Gangs are able to profit from this primarily through acting as brokers, linking buyers who typically originate from the western world and the Middle East to impoverished communities where people are willing to sell their organ in the hope of achieving some financial security. Though prices vary considerably around the world, a study made in 2005 found that on average a kidney would sell for $10,000 in Peru and around $6,000 in Brazil, offering brokers a potential profit margin of over 1000 percent. What’s more, there is no guarantee the seller will receive the promised amount in full.
Given this situation, at a meeting of judicial officials from Central America and the Dominican Republic last month, representatives from all countries agreed to set a minimum penalty for the crime of organ trafficking.
However, for transplants to happen the criminals need the illegal cooperation of a hospital and well-trained surgeons.
Another problem is the international legal framework. While organ trafficking is deemed to be illegal in almost every country in the world, the lack of a legal international framework is preventing governments from cracking down on the trade more effectively.
This US DEMAND used to be global health corporations overseas in Foreign Economic Zones-----today they are making that demand stem from US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone global health tourism corporate campuses----as here in Baltimore with global JOHNS HOPKINS taking all Baltimore's CITY CENTER as a global corporate campus tied to health care. As with all GREED AND DESTRUCTION that comes with global Wall STreet enrichment----these 5% to the 1% blame GANGS-----MAFIA----CARTELS when the entire process is driven by the so-called PROFESSIONALS installed as executives to these global health tourism campuses----THEY KNOW THEY ARE INSPIRING THESE CARTELS.
Organ Trafficking In South America Fueled By U.S. Demand
08/17/2012 12:22 pm ET
Andrew O’Reilly Fox News Latino
The demand for donated organs in wealthy nations is rising much faster than the supply of organs donated through traditional means can meet, leading to a small but growing number of people living in poverty who sell their vital organs on the black market.
Countries like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Bolivia are among the nations where organ trafficking has become a major underground business as demand for these body parts rises in the United States, which has become the largest supplier and market for the trade, according to a news report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
During the CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA terms of small government dismantling and privatizing all that is public----all oversight and accountability----with this one issue of deregulated health care and tissue and organ PROCUREMENT----we are watching as every agency and institution involved in handling our human remains become CORRUPTED AND COMPROMISED because the leaders that would be protecting CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST are now blind to that and protecting only global wealth and corporate power.
The appointment of a BALTIMORE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT LEADER----the appointment of our public University Medical System leader---the appointment of our public justice leaders and leaders of our MEDICAL EXAMINERS' agencies ALL become blinded to seeing ethics and morality protections and instead MOVE FORWARD with the ethos of GREED AND PROFIT.
No area of our US institutions called to handle human remains has been compromised more than our MORTICIANS AND FUNERAL HOME DIRECTORS. Again, there are a 99% of citizens working in these areas-----we are talking about those 5% to the 1% willing to enrichment themselves while blinded by the dismantlement of ALL THAT IS DEVELOPED NATION RULE OF LAW, GOD'S NATURAL LAW, MODERN ETHICS AND MORALITY.
If a medical examiners' office is corrupt----sending human remains for funeral preparations will identify corrupted morticians who then enrich themselves. What we have been seeing these few decades and we are seeing this soar these several years of Obama and deregulation with AFFORDABLE CARE ACT-----if human remains are not compromised before they reach a mortuary-----they are now being compromised AT THESE MORTUARIES ----because they want to sell human remains on a illegal tissue and organ harvesting market----brought to the US by GLOBAL WALL STREET PLAYERS.
A Funeral Home Investigation Considers the MacabreBy MICHAEL BRICKOCT. 31, 2005
Investigators are pursuing a criminal inquiry involving macabre dealings in mortuaries and unseemly sales of flesh and bone.
Investors in a Brooklyn funeral home have told the police that they suspect an embalmer improperly removed body parts. The embalmer had connections to a dentist whose business, Biomedical Tissue Services of Fort Lee, N.J., sold human tissue to processing companies, a legitimate but poorly understood niche of medical science. The police quietly pursued the investigation for more than a year until it was disclosed in newspapers this month.
Now investigators are following an abundance of leads from people identifying themselves as relatives of victims, a law enforcement official said, adding that no charges had been filed and no grand jury convened. The federal Food and Drug Administration has warned the public that Biomedical Tissue Services may have obtained tissue without getting proper consent from donors or screening the tissue for disease, and that some of that tissue may have been implanted in patients. Law enforcement officials spoke on condition of anonymity because there have been no charges and the investigation is unfinished.
The notion of a clandestine human chop shop has attracted some of the familiar characters of New York scandal. Sanford Rubenstein, the lawyer best known for representing the Rev. Al Sharpton and Abner Louima, went before five television cameras to announce a civil lawsuit on behalf of a man who said that tissue had been taken from his father's body. Mr. Rubenstein said that he was also taking calls from other people who were making similar claims.
The case's origins trace to a complicated disagreement over the sale of a funeral home in Brooklyn.
A couple operating the funeral home approached the police and prosecutors more than a year ago with accusations of fraud, an investigator and the law enforcement official said. An offhand remark developed into an accusation that the embalmer was returning bodies with parts missing, and the embalmer's business connections to the dentist led to questions about the possibility of sales of improperly obtained tissue.
Since the investigation was disclosed in The Daily News on Oct. 7, its twists and turns have given tabloid editors occasion to design headlines with the words "ghouls," "ghoulish" and "harvest" and the phrase "Body-Snatch Probe Widens."
Tales of stolen body parts are timelessly resonant, tied to the sanctity of dying and fear of the unknown. The 1978 movie "Coma," directed by Michael Crichton, told a fictional story of doctors stealing organs from patients. For years, the State Department has sought to dispel rumors of an international trade in baby organs, distributing materials that quote the French folklorist Veronique Campion-Vincent: "The baby-parts story is a new -- updated and technologized -- version of an immemorial fable."
Two central themes of the New York story have drawn scrutiny in recent years. In 2002, oversight of the funeral industry was much discussed after the discovery of 280 bodies dumped in the woods near a Georgia crematory. And last year, the underground market for body parts was underscored by a scandal at the University of California, Los Angeles, where an employee was accused of conspiring to sell body parts.
Experts say the nature of these fears is evolving as advances in technology make more parts of the body useful and consequently valuable. An area of medical science once mostly limited to whole vital organs like hearts, livers and kidneys has expanded to include muscle, bone, tendon and skin used in therapies and research.
And an aging population with the resources to pay for health care options has increased demand, said Doug Wilson, vice president of LifeNet, a nonprofit organ donation and tissue banking system in Virginia Beach, Va.
"This story has been written with different players -- the names are now changed -- over the last 10 years," Mr. Wilson said. "There's more use of tissue today because orthopedic and neurosurgery are increasing because baby boomers are getting older. They want to remain active and golf and play tennis and jog five miles and keep their cholesterol levels down."
As the industry has grown, the possibility of infection from diseased tissue has become a concern. A galvanizing case was the death in 2001 of Brian Lykins, 23, who received tainted tissue during knee surgery in Minnesota. In May, the Food and Drug Administration enacted safety standards for tissue processors, governing labeling, packaging and distribution.
That agency is one of several investigating the New York case. Law enforcement officials and representatives of people involved in the inquiry say the case can be traced to the sale of the Daniel George & Son Funeral Home in Bensonhurst. Records in Kings County Supreme Court show that Daniel George Jr. signed an agreement in March 2002 to sell the home to Joseph Nicelli of Staten Island.
Mr. Nicelli was described by a law enforcement official as a trade embalmer with business connections to a dentist, Michael Mastromarino. Mr. Mastromarino's dentistry license was suspended for four years beginning in October 2002, state records show. His business, Biomedical Tissue Services, sells tissue to processing companies, his lawyer said, adding that the business was regulated by state and federal authorities. Processing companies prepare tissue for transplant.
Last year, Mr. George sued Mr. Nicelli, accusing him of failing to make payments on the purchase of the funeral home, and Mr. Nicelli responded that Mr. George had failed to disclose relevant information about the business. The lawsuit also named as a defendant a funeral home company controlled by Robert Nelms and his wife, Debora Johnson. Mr. Nelms, who was operating the Bensonhurst funeral home, said in court papers that although he was renting the property he was not responsible for any of the obligations of the business sale agreement.
Last year, Mr. Nelms and Ms. Johnson approached the police and prosecutors and accused Mr. Nicelli of fraudulent dealings at the funeral home, investigators and their lawyer said. Their first assertion was that customers had tried to redeem prepaid funeral plans for which they could find no records. In questioning, a law enforcement official said, Ms. Johnson mentioned finding bodies where plastic pipe appeared to have been inserted under clothing in place of bones, saying: "There's a lot of funny things going on."
Investigators began seeking to determine whether death records had been altered. The police are interviewing relatives of the deceased, and the Department of Investigation is overseeing a review of records from the medical examiner's office, law enforcement officials said. Investigators are considering exhuming graves for evidence.
Richard Medina, a lawyer for Mr. Nicelli, said that he had not been told his client was a target of any investigation. "Joe's reputation for honesty and decency is unparalleled and pristine," Mr. Medina said.
Mario Gallucci, a lawyer for Mr. Mastromarino, said his client sold tissue obtained with consent.
"It's used by both medical and research companies, and it's perfectly legal to do it," Mr. Gallucci said, adding that his client had been unfairly dragged into a business dispute between Mr. Nicelli and Mr. Nelms and Ms. Johnson.
Eric Franz, a lawyer for Mr. Nelms and Ms. Johnson, said his clients had made a good-faith effort to report a crime.
"Nelms and Johnson have not set anyone up," Mr. Franz said. "All they have done is been candid with the authorities and let them conduct their investigation."
Though no charges have been filed, the case has had an impact on Wall Street. The stock prices of three tissue processing companies named in the newspapers as customers of Biomedical Tissue Services immediately fell, and the companies issued product recalls.
As someone who envisions cremation with my remains scattered somewhere sentimental----when maybe an organ donation of a kidney NOT MY ENTIRE BODY------I am now made skeptical that there will be mortuaries that will actually do this. We have seen over these same few decades where citizens having their loved ones cremated find the ashes are not even their loved one----or not even human-----and it is all tied with this growing global health tourism with soaring TRANSPLANT INDUSTRY. As US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are allowed to bring this back to the US----in global health tourism campuses----like global Johns Hopkins or our University of Maryland Medical System that will soon be enfolded into global JOHNS HOPKINS------WE THE PEOPLE will have no avenue towards assuring our desires for END OF LIFE actually happen.
More Families Choosing Cremation For Departed Loved Ones
January 7, 20178:08 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition SaturdayCremation rates in the U.S. have nearly doubled over the past 15 years. Barbara Kemmis, executive director of the Cremation Association of North America, discusses reasons for the increase.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Nearly half of all Americans who died this past year were cremated. Cremation rates have reportedly doubled in the United States over the past 15 years, despite some religious objections and squeamishness about the idea of our loved ones being reduced to ashes. Why? Barbara Kemmis, executive director of the Cremation Association of North America, joins us from WBEZ in Chicago. Thanks so much for being with us.
BARBARA KEMMIS: Thank you, Scott. It's a pleasure.
SIMON: What are some of the reasons you think more people's families, I guess I should - I almost said why more people are choosing to be cremated. And that might technically be true - but usually after their death.
KEMMIS: So cremation is simply cheaper than burial. Of course, when you consider a funeral or a memorial service or celebration-of-life expenses, those are extra. And consumers also report that they see extra value with cremation and that they have more flexibility. To put it bluntly, death, even when it's anticipated, is inconvenient.
We don't want to lose our loved ones. We don't want to drop everything and gather and grieve and do what we need to do. But we must. And we can do that. But as families are spread across the country in various states, it's more and more difficult to bring people together on short notice. Cremation can expand the timeframe of grieving and memorializing your loved one.
SIMON: Because there's more cremations, more problem to run into with scattering remains? I mean, I know, for example, they're very particular about it in the San Francisco Bay area. And I know from experience you can't get your ashes scattered there in Wrigley Field in Chicago.
KEMMIS: That is true. And you might've caught the news where cremated remains were scattered at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City at the intermission, which canceled the rest of the production.
SIMON: I missed that. Oh, my word. Most of us maybe, you know, get some malted milk balls at intermission, not scattered remains. But go ahead, yeah.
KEMMIS: Yeah right. So scattering is very common. But you have to be aware of the legalities of that.
SIMON: A lot of us might recall that scene in "Meet The Parents." You know what I'm talking about?
KEMMIS: (Laughter) Yes.
SIMON: Ben Stiller pops the champagne cork and accidentally knocks over the urn of his father-in-law's mother. So is it permissible to make jokes about cremation?
KEMMIS: It's permissible. It's common. Popular culture has normalized cremation in a way 'cause - not only with the "Fockers" movies. There's also "The Big Lebowski." That's famous with the cremated remains in the coffee can. And he goes to scatter them. And they come back in his face. That's based on reality. That happens. And now you can buy urns that are in the shape and with the same pattern as that coffee can if you're a "Big Lebowski" fan.
SIMON: Oh. (Laughter) I'm not that big a fan. But I...
SIMON: Are there any states or cities where people are getting cremated more than others?
KEMMIS: Southern states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia tend to have lower cremation rates. Florida is higher. It's one of the states where people have chosen to retire. And when they come to retire, they think about, what happens when I die? Do I want to be buried in Florida? Do I want my body shipped back to my hometown. Or will I choose cremation?
SIMON: Barbara Kemmis is executive director of the Cremation Association of North America. Thanks for being with us.
KEMMIS: Thank you, Scott.
SIMON: A note to add - Carrie Fisher was cremated. This week, BuzzFeed published photos from her memorial service, where her ashes were placed in a huge replica of a Prozac anti-depressant pill. Her brother, Todd Fisher, told the website (reading) and so they're together and they will be together here and in heaven, and we're OK with that.
Here we have what turned out NOT TO BE THE LEADER OF OUR 99% REVOLUTION----Bernie Sanders telling us NOTHING ABOUT all the damage done by these several years of AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. Sanders said the ACA was a good beginning----as his idea of reform is the same GLOBAL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE UNITED NATIONS single payer ------same as Trump and Hillary.
A REAL left leader on health care would be shouting this:
We must reverse all consolidation of health industry into ACO global managed care health systems-----
We must reverse all dismantling of oversight and accountability that comes when our Federal, state, and local public health departments work for public interest and not global Wall Street health profit.
We must RE-REGULATE our health industry. Sure, there are always regulation that are antiquated and can be eliminated but global Wall Street has completely eliminated any regulatory action because US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones HAVE NO US REGULATIONS OR US LAWS.
We must first do all the above to even get to EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL----if any leader is simply shouting MEDICARE AND SINGLE PAYER----they are MOVING FORWARD the global health policy of 99% getting access to only preventative care.
Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted, "As Republicans try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they should be reminded every day that 36,000 people will die yearly as a result.”
Is that number accurate? The Washington Post breaks it down.
Using scare tactics for what global Wall Street pretended to be that expanded MEDICAID------is cynical. More people will die if ACA MOVES FORWARD -----indeed, Republicans will install bad policy that will kill----but it will look just the same as AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND ITS GOAL.
Bernie Sanders’s claim that ‘36,000 people will die yearly’ if Obamacare is repealed
By Glenn Kessler January 14 at 3:00 AM
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)“As Republicans try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they should be reminded every day that 36,000 people will die yearly as a result.”
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), in a tweet, Jan. 12, 2017
With the fate of the Affordable Care Act hanging in the balance, the rhetorical warfare is only going to get worse. Earlier this week, we looked at an exaggerated GOP claim about Obamacare premiums.
Then this tweet caught our eye:
As Republicans try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they should be reminded every day that 36,000 people will die yearly as a result.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 12, 2017
How is this number calculated and is it credible?
The FactsFor context, more than 2.6 million people died in the United States in 2015, or nearly 7,200 per day. So Sanders is suggesting repeal of the law would increase the number of deaths by 1.4 percent.
Sanders obtained the figure of 36,000 from a calculation by ThinkProgress, a left-leaning website, according to his aides. Essentially, ThinkProgress assumed that repeal will result in 29.8 million people losing their insurance and that one person will die for every 830 people who lose their insurance. That yields a number of 35,903.
So this is an estimate based on two other estimates. How credible are the other two estimates?
The Obama administration says that about 20 million people have gained insurance because of the ACA. We’ve done some digging on this number — some conservative analysts have raised questions about it — but it generally seems in the ballpark. Surprisingly, more of the increase in coverage comes from the expansion of Medicaid, not the creation of the exchanges for individual insurance.
The larger number of 29.8 million comes from an Urban Institute report that assumes Republicans will repeal parts of the law through the reconciliation process without outlining any replacement plan, thus leading to a near collapse of the nongroup insurance market. That’s a pretty big assumption.
Moreover, one cannot assume that everyone will automatically lose coverage. One recent study has indicated that nearly 30 percent of the gain in the insured came from people who were already eligible for Medicaid. This is known as the “woodworker” effect. In theory, these people still would be eligible even if the expansion of Medicaid was repealed, though the authors of the report dispute that, saying the woodworker effect took place precisely because of policies in the law.
In any case, nearly 30 million is certainly a high estimate.
The other part of the calculation is even more problematic. It stems from a study on the effect of the Massachusetts health-care law implemented by then Gov. Mitt Romney, not the Affordable Care Act.
The study compared changes in mortality rates for adults from 2001-2005 to the rates in 2007-2010, after the law was implemented. The research indicated that for every 830 adults who gained insurance, there was one fewer death per year.
But the study clearly noted that “we do not have individual-level insurance information and thus cannot directly link mortality changes to persons gaining insurance coverage.” Moreover, it said the results could not be directly applied to the Affordable Care Act because “Massachusetts differs from the rest of the nation, including lower mortality, higher income and baseline insurance coverage rates, fewer minorities, and the most per capita physicians in the country.”
There are wrong ways and right ways to cite this kind of data. When the White House Council of Economic Advisers in December cited the report, it appropriately noted that it was based on data from Massachusetts: “If experience under the ACA matches what was observed under Massachusetts health reform, an estimated 24,000 deaths are already being avoided annually.”
But Sanders not only directly applied the formula to the ACA, but he also assumed that withdrawing insurance would have the same impact as adding insurance. Benjamin Sommers, the lead author of the study, said: “You’re right that giving insurance versus taking it away may not produce mirror image effects — that adds further uncertainty to the discussion.”
Sommers, who helped implement the ACA as an Obama administration official in 2011-2014, said applying the formula could produce “a reasonable ballpark estimate of what is a difficult question to answer, but it’s clearly not a definitive fact.” He added that Sanders’s tweet was “not a very nuanced assessment. Twitter isn’t the best venue for assessing complex research findings.”
Warren Gunnels, a Sanders policy aide, also pointed to a detailed 2009 study that estimated that out of every 1 million people without insurance, 1,000 will die because they lacked insurance. The study followed a group of patients for 12 years and found that those without insurance had a higher rate of mortality. Roughly speaking, if all 20 million people who gained insurance under the Affordable Care Act lost it, that would mean 20,000 deaths. Not only is that about half as much as the figure touted by Sanders, but it also assumes Republicans will simply leave everyone now covered without health insurance.
The Pinocchio TestCertainly, the impact of changes in the health-insurance market on the death rate is an important issue in the debate over Obamacare, especially if Republican pledges to keep everyone covered fall short. But the Fact Checker often warns readers to be wary of scare statistics that lack context.
Sanders has tweeted as a definite fact an estimate that a) assumes Republicans will gut Obamacare without a replacement b) assumes the worst possible impact from that policy and c) assumes that data derived from the Massachusetts experience can be applied across the United States.
Those are three very big assumptions. Take away any one of them, and Sanders’s claim that repeal of the law will cause 36,000 people to die a year falls apart.
Ordinarily, this sort of fuzzy math would be worthy of at least Three Pinocchios. But ThinkProgress, in calculating the number, at least said this many people “could” die. Sanders instead stated it as a definitive fact — that 36,000 will die. That tips this claim into Four-Pinocchio territory.