Comments on: If You Own a Gun, Should You Pay More for Health Care?

By: Linda Gorman

Linda Gorman — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:19:59 +0000

fatchicksdigus–

The 120,000 accidental deaths by physicians number, if derived by extrapolation from the IOM medical errors study, is not a reliable statistic. Discussions of the original IOM report suggest that it overstated deaths from medical error. Also, as the latest available US Vital Statistics report puts accidental firearms deaths at 642 in 2006, would you please provide a reference to the 1,500 deaths statistic?

By: fatchicksdigus

fatchicksdigus — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:31:36 +0000

Think about this:

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Then think about this:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

By: emsfire138

emsfire138 — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:34:58 +0000

Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that almost nobody ever seems to bring up any sort of statistics on how many lives are saved, assaults (and related injuries), are averted by people owning and (especially) carrying firearms?
It is treated as if there are only negatives to the responsible “keeping” and “bearing” of firearms. The factual statistics on the many positive aspects of such responsible activity are just brushed under the rug.

By: Linda Gorman

Linda Gorman — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:13:58 +0000

I am using the federal terminology. For public health programs dedicated to preventing accidental injury or death, accidental gunshot deaths obviously differ from homicides using guns and suicides using guns and should be classified accordingly. It is not appropriate to lump them with cancer deaths.

Artk, could you please tell me where you saw the nonfatal accidental gunshot injury statistics?

By: artk

artk — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:07:24 +0000

Linda, while we at it, I noticed that you used the “accidental” gunshot death statistic. The most recent statistics I’ve seen are there are 24,000 non fatal accidental gunshot injuries every year as well as some 16,000 gun suicides. That gunshot injury rate is about the same as the annual new smoking related stomach cancers. Both cigarettes and guns are legal products. If you advocate higher insurance rates for cigarette smokers because of elevated health risks, why not for gun owners?

By: John R. Graham

John R. Graham — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:00:06 +0000

Lucy: Your constitutional rights have no bearing on the price you pay for things. You have to pay to buy a gun: Your right doesn’t compel taxpayers to give it to you for “free”. Similarly, if you want to join a a religious community that tithes, you cannot go to the government and demand that it force the religious community to allow you to participate for “free.”

In fact, insurance in a free society will certainly price premiums differently according to how you exercise your rights. You have the right to eat, smoke, and drink as much and exercise as little as you want – and those choices will change your premiums (in a free society. Under ObamaCare the costs will appear elsewhere, e.g. in reduced wages or unemployment.)

As Linda Gorman also points out, health insurers in the individual market generally do not use gun ownership as an underwriting factor, meaning it is not important. If artk were correct, they would charge lower premiums to gun owners, ceteris paribus. If Chait were correct, they would charge them higher premiums.

An alternative counterfactual would be if health plans gave their beneficiaries discount coupons to buy guns or ammo, which they do not, thus debunking artk!

By: Linda Gorman

Linda Gorman — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:21:49 +0000

Artk, if you have health insurance were you asked if you owned a gun before the company issued the policy? If not, it suggests that gun ownership doesn’t work as an indicator of risk.

Maybe gun ownership is so widespread in the US that it doesn’t matter. Maybe gun owners who also have health insurance are not inclined to end up with gunshot injuries. We know that the risk profile of those who are insured and uninsured differs.

I’ve never seen what I would consider reliable statistics on the cost of treating gunshot injuries versus the cost of aquatic accidents (which would be the proper comparator as opposed to drownings), so the answer to your question is that I don’t know.

It isn’t clear that an insurance company profits more if I die. Surely a continued stream of premium payments from me would be preferable, especially if the gunshot wound isn’t of the type that is permanently disabling.

By: artk

artk — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:38:59 +0000

Linda, insurance companies neither like or dislike you, you’re simply a P&L entry. A gunshot that immediately kills you is more profitable then one that injures you. Let’s get back to the question at hand, what’s the cost of medical care for gunshots wounds, fatal or not vs the cost of drownings?

By: Lucy

Lucy — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:37:06 +0000

This is an interesting post. If owning a gun is a constitutional right, then it doesn’t seem right for insurance companies to increase your premium just because you own one.

I thought this post about healthcare was interesting as well.

By: Linda Gorman

Linda Gorman — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:12:31 +0000

I doubt that the people at insurance companies wish for another person’s death. I think that it is irresponsible to assert that they do.